Blame Social Justice Warriors for Donald Trump

[Chilloutman]

 

And looking at what should not be tolerated is really the right approach,no ? Mods are enforcement and rules are negative not positive.

 

Also have to consider the kind of person who really wants to be an active mod like you outline is not going to be a good one.

 

 

There's a subtle difference between "not tolerated" and "disincentivized". "Not tolerated" makes it sound like I want to ban people for the things I believe the rules should discourage. It's like... calling the other guy a liar in a debate is sure as hell not going to help the discussion proceed in a constructive manner (it's actually pretty much granted to blow up at that point), but "interpreting others' posts in bad faith and using needlessly inflammatory language are not tolerated" makes it sound like you'd throw someone out basically for getting frustrated.

 

"Active moderation is bad moderation" is a stupid meme. In my experience, the more active the moderation, the better the signal-to-noise ratio of a forum. Now, you can argue that signal-to-noise ratio isn't the most important metric by which to measure the quality of a forum, but... the validity of that statement really varies on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

Liar!

[Hurlshort]

I can relate to this whole 'back in the day' stuff somewhat.  I was experiencing that reminiscence a year or two ago, and I was attributing it to the influx of new people from PoE, the GG thread and how it seemed to bleed into everything else, etc.  But the reality is everything changes, and if you can't hang with those changes then it is probably time to move on.  Just because the forum doesn't meet your needs the way it once did (or the way a previous version did) does not mean it is all bad.  Everything changes.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Go on, don't stop now. What rules should be in place? Care to give an example of what kind of discussion, or posts, should not be tolerated?

 

 

 

"Should not be tolerated" is approaching the problem from the wrong angle. I don't want less discussion, I want better discussion. Rules that facilitate a constructive exchange of ideas. Mods who step in before problems become problems. Research says that the overwhelming majority of toxic behavior is coming from people who are otherwise perfectly civil - this suggests that you could probably get great results simply by reminding them to conduct themselves with decorum when things start to turn nasty, before their brain kicks into full-on poo-flinging mode.

 

 

So the arbiter on what is a better discussion is up to one on the expense of others. The only logical conclusion of such practice is a hugbox as there is no universal rule of decorum fit for all people. For example, "your mom"-jokes are unacceptable for southern europeans while for northern ones it complete flies over their heads as the concept of a cheap shot insult to ones mother is no different than to any other person and cheap shots are socially acceptable to begin with. So what's left is a bunch of arbitrary rules ending leaving everyone afraid of insulting one another and words like "[whatever]-ism!" or "you're a [whatever]-ist!" are used as killing words to end the discussion, not to make it any better.

 

The phrase "toxic behaviour" is a good example as it so soft that it's practically meaningless. Kinda like George Carlin talked about back in the day:

 

[213374U]

But rules do change behavior

 

 

That's a pretty big statement to make so casually. Can you provide any, ahem, citations? I'm genuinely interested.

 

Rules can be used reactively against certain behavior and to remove people who refuse to abide by them repeatedly. However I'm not so certain they change behavior by themselves, and they certainly do not work preemptively. Do laws stop harmful behavior, or are lawbreakers as unconcerned about the law as they are with the well-being of their fellow humans, which the law is ultimately designed to protect?

 

This doesn't mean rules are useless. They would be an instrument through which "problem" users could be removed from here, which may or may not be you are really asking for. However, that by itself does not lead to "productive" discussions, simply to less users. You reasoned how getting emotional can get in the way of "productive" discussion, but that doesn't reflect my experience. You seem certain that threads that devolve into slugging matches cease to be productive, but I'm more of the opinion that they devolve because they weren't that productive to begin with - people get progressively more frustrated and the discussion fails. Whether this results in the topic being deserted or poo-flinging makes little difference.

 

Your reasoning also ignores the fact that online discussions do not work as face-to-face interactions. The thread is still here after the enrage falls off, and all it takes is that you walk away for a while. Discussion can be continued by any participants at any point because previous comments remain. Using "human nature" as a justification to engage in a protracted exchange of personal attacks lasting more than the adrenaline rush would in a real life situation sounds like a rationalization, to indulge in behavior that you know is neither acceptable nor productive, but feel like indulging in anyway. Emotional investment may play a role, but much like abusive relationships, you learn as you get older... or don't. Either way, (more/tougher) rules are not really a solution.

 

And yeah, I know I'm probably a huge hypocrite for posting this. Oh well.

[Meshugger]

Your reasoning also ignores the fact that online discussions do not work as face-to-face interactions.

This statement bears a quote of it own.

[Guard Dog]

I wonder is it is too late to bring this thread back on topic? I hope not because I just read an opinion piece that is exactly on-point:http://city-journal.org/html/andrew-sullivans-blind-spot-14431.html

 

 

This is an age in which a woman might succeed a black man as president, but also one in which a member of the white working class has declining options to make a decent living. . . . A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to “check his privilege” by students at Ivy League colleges.

 

Rather than respond to their victory in the culture wars with “magnanimity,” as Sullivan suggests, the so-called social-justice warriors stepped up their attack on the losers in the culture wars, rubbing their noses against the grates of political correctness.

 

But Trump, aided and abetted by his media-savvy, Twitter, and Internet forays, arose from the rubble like an angry genie.

[Hurlshort]

Some bad language, although I'm guessing most have seen it.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7FawbAJpoQ

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Okay. It sounds like you have trouble controlling your feelings and then giving a reason 'human nature' because of it. That's what it sounds like to me. From my experience, some people can't help but be emotive while others can be more logical or 'Spock like' or they're a mix in between. 

 

 

Well, that description may or may not apply to me, but it's also kind of irrelevant, because given enough people, it sure as hell will apply to someone sooner or later. Not taking into account how certain people will react and just shrugging "well they need to not react like they do" has never really solved any problem in the history of mankind, as far as I'm aware.

 

 

tldr; If you want intelligent discussion from a group of people on a wide range of topics, this is not the best place for it.

 

 

Sure, but I'm not saying "WOT needs more stringent moderation". I'm saying "the rules of the forum do not facilitate constructive debate, which sometimes hurts the quality of discussion in topics that are actually relevant to the forum, or are even the very reason for its existence".

 

 

So the arbiter on what is a better discussion is up to one on the expense of others. The only logical conclusion of such practice is a hugbox as there is no universal rule of decorum fit for all people.

 

 

False dichotomy. There's some excluded middle ground between "we don't moderate unless some really heavy poo-flinging happens" and "nobody is ever allowed to say anything that could possibly be construed as offensive".

[Volourn]

It's funny but not actually accurate. Chances are if he lived during slavery he wouldn't own slaves. Also, year 2? He might be labeled  'devil' or 'demon' if he showed up then. L0LZ

[BruceVC]

 

I wonder is it is too late to bring this thread back on topic? I hope not because I just read an opinion piece that is exactly on-point:http://city-journal.org/html/andrew-sullivans-blind-spot-14431.html

 

 

This is an age in which a woman might succeed a black man as president, but also one in which a member of the white working class has declining options to make a decent living. . . . A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to “check his privilege” by students at Ivy League colleges.

 

Rather than respond to their victory in the culture wars with “magnanimity,” as Sullivan suggests, the so-called social-justice warriors stepped up their attack on the losers in the culture wars, rubbing their noses against the grates of political correctness.

 

But Trump, aided and abetted by his media-savvy, Twitter, and Internet forays, arose from the rubble like an angry genie.

 

Its an interesting  read but its primarily all about "Obama-bashing " ...he seems to focus on all the perceived failures of Obama

[Guard Dog]

I wouldn't say failures so much as "bad acts".

[Amentep]

#Trigglypuff mad! Friend makes demands on her behalf (presumably because she's too mad to do it herself?).

I may be wrong, but if the event was open to the public (which I think it was) I believe the rule is that you can't expect privacy with respect to not being recorded in public spaces so long as the end result isn't commercial.

 

The only grounds - again - that I understand she might be able to argue would be defamation, but she'd have to prove she was portrayed in a false manner; just being unflattering or embarrassing isn't enough.

 

I wonder is it is too late to bring this thread back on topic? I hope not because I just read an opinion piece that is exactly on-point:http://city-journal.org/html/andrew-sullivans-blind-spot-14431.html

 

This is an age in which a woman might succeed a black man as president, but also one in which a member of the white working class has declining options to make a decent living. . . . A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to “check his privilege” by students at Ivy League colleges.

 

Rather than respond to their victory in the culture wars with “magnanimity,” as Sullivan suggests, the so-called social-justice warriors stepped up their attack on the losers in the culture wars, rubbing their noses against the grates of political correctness.

 

But Trump, aided and abetted by his media-savvy, Twitter, and Internet forays, arose from the rubble like an angry genie.

 

I find it interesting that article - rather than debating any of Sullivan's points spends the article trying to say Sullivan's points are wrong not for factual reasons but because he's "liberal".

[Meshugger]

 

So the arbiter on what is a better discussion is up to one on the expense of others. The only logical conclusion of such practice is a hugbox as there is no universal rule of decorum fit for all people.

 

 

False dichotomy. There's some excluded middle ground between "we don't moderate unless some really heavy poo-flinging happens" and "nobody is ever allowed to say anything that could possibly be construed as offensive".

 

 

Again, it places judgement on what a middle ground is on the hands of one or a few instead of allowing discussion grow organically and only act when the snails and ****roaches arrive. Sure, you can treat the forum as a private garden with the most excellent gardener of excellent discussions, but i have seen too many times gardeners burning down their respective gardens in a hissy fit when the trees and the flowers didn't get along as they wished.

 

Point being, I rather have mods who puts more emphasis on a hands-off approach than on a hands-on one. Trying to run a pursuit for the golden middle ground is a slippery slope to hugboxes. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

So the arbiter on what is a better discussion is up to one on the expense of others. The only logical conclusion of such practice is a hugbox as there is no universal rule of decorum fit for all people.

 

 

False dichotomy. There's some excluded middle ground between "we don't moderate unless some really heavy poo-flinging happens" and "nobody is ever allowed to say anything that could possibly be construed as offensive".

 

 

Again, it places judgement on what a middle ground is on the hands of one or a few instead of allowing discussion grow organically and only act when the snails and ****roaches arrive. Sure, you can treat the forum as a private garden with the most excellent gardener of excellent discussions, but i have seen too many times gardeners burning down their respective gardens in a hissy fit when the trees and the flowers didn't get along as they wished.

 

 

 

Whereas I didn't.

 

 

Trying to run a pursuit for the golden middle ground is a slippery slope to hugboxes.

 

Reiterating a claim without any evidence to substantiate it doesn't make it true.

Edited May 5, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Leferd]

http://www.vocativ.com/315509/soldiers-of-odin-in-us/

 

"The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February"

 

Need to call out to real Social Justice Warriors for protection!

[BruceVC]

http://www.vocativ.com/315509/soldiers-of-odin-in-us/

 

"The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February"

 

Need to call out to real Social Justice Warriors for protection!

This seems really unnecessary..sorry guys I just think this type of initiative is more divisive than helpful  

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

So the arbiter on what is a better discussion is up to one on the expense of others. The only logical conclusion of such practice is a hugbox as there is no universal rule of decorum fit for all people.

 

 

False dichotomy. There's some excluded middle ground between "we don't moderate unless some really heavy poo-flinging happens" and "nobody is ever allowed to say anything that could possibly be construed as offensive".

 

 

Again, it places judgement on what a middle ground is on the hands of one or a few instead of allowing discussion grow organically and only act when the snails and ****roaches arrive. Sure, you can treat the forum as a private garden with the most excellent gardener of excellent discussions, but i have seen too many times gardeners burning down their respective gardens in a hissy fit when the trees and the flowers didn't get along as they wished.

 

 

 

Whereas I didn't.

 

 

Trying to run a pursuit for the golden middle ground is a slippery slope to hugboxes.

 

Reiterating a claim without any evidence to substantiate it doesn't make it true.

 

 

It's an axiom, silly. 

[Leferd]

 

 

http://www.vocativ.com/315509/soldiers-of-odin-in-us/

 

"The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February"

 

Need to call out to real Social Justice Warriors for protection!

This seems really unnecessary..sorry guys I just think this type of initiative is more divisive than helpful

Shouldn't I be scared of these guys?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Trying to run a pursuit for the golden middle ground is a slippery slope to hugboxes.

 

Reiterating a claim without any evidence to substantiate it doesn't make it true.

 

 

It's an axiom, silly.

 

 

An axiom, you say? 

[BruceVC]

 

 

http://www.vocativ.com/315509/soldiers-of-odin-in-us/

 

"The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February"

 

Need to call out to real Social Justice Warriors for protection!

This seems really unnecessary..sorry guys I just think this type of initiative is more divisive than helpful

Shouldn't I be scared of these guys?

 

No you shouldn't

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://www.vocativ.com/315509/soldiers-of-odin-in-us/

"The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February"

Need to call out to real Social Justice Warriors for protection!

So the larperspatrol groups are pretending to be vikings now?

[Leferd]

 

http://www.vocativ.com/315509/soldiers-of-odin-in-us/

"The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February"

Need to call out to real Social Justice Warriors for protection!

So the larperspatrol groups are pretending to be vikings now?

Note to self: Don't hit on white chicks around pale dudes wearing horned helmets.

 

Guess that means no Comic-Con for me in the near future.

 

Then gain, if I had a SJW posse with me...

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Trying to run a pursuit for the golden middle ground is a slippery slope to hugboxes.

 

Reiterating a claim without any evidence to substantiate it doesn't make it true.

 

 

It's an axiom, silly.

 

 

An axiom, you say? 

 

 

lol, no. The term slippery slope is not a slippery slope in itself.

 

Regulate any term of human activity in the name of an arbitrary term leads to over-regulation because it ends up with a small group of arbiters deciding for the many. Same thing. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

Trying to run a pursuit for the golden middle ground is a slippery slope to hugboxes.

 

Reiterating a claim without any evidence to substantiate it doesn't make it true.

 

 

It's an axiom, silly.

 

 

An axiom, you say? 

 

 

lol, no. The term slippery slope is not a slippery slope in itself.

 

Regulate any term of human activity in the name of an arbitrary term leads to over-regulation because it ends up with a small group of arbiters deciding for the many. Same thing. 

 

 

You do realize that your argument has now morphed into "having laws is a slippery slope in itself", right?

 

"Regulating any term of human activity (crime) in the name of an arbitrary term (having an ordered society where people's rights are upheld) leads to over-regulation" is... debatable, to say the least.

Edited May 5, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

Trying to run a pursuit for the golden middle ground is a slippery slope to hugboxes.

 

Reiterating a claim without any evidence to substantiate it doesn't make it true.

 

 

It's an axiom, silly.

 

 

An axiom, you say? 

 

 

lol, no. The term slippery slope is not a slippery slope in itself.

 

Regulate any term of human activity in the name of an arbitrary term leads to over-regulation because it ends up with a small group of arbiters deciding for the many. Same thing. 

 

 

You do realize that your argument has now morphed into "having laws is a slippery slope in itself", right?

 

 

Nope, you're completely wrong.

 

How about you musing the rest of the forum of the golden medium of forum moderation with quantitative results, what constitutes as a middle ground and how to measure the greatness of a discussion instead? And please, no paywalls.