"Curating Safe(r) Spaces In Comments"

[Datura]

Happy holidays, everybody!

I was very happy to stumble upon this post from Tiger Beatdown, my favourite feminist/social justice blog. I would really love to see how TCoD members react to it—especially members actively involved in social justice communities (LGBT, feminism, Occupy, etc.).

This article, and the one it references in its first sentence, raise an interesting question about discussions on the internet. Basically, when discussing issues such as those in the Serious Business forum, is anybody free to post absolutely anything as long as it follows the forum rules? Or should we as a community be more selective about what kinds of arguments we allow? In particular, the article mentions how the "Devil's advocate" argument is misused, which is something that occurs in debates here every so often.

A good example for TCoD would be LGBT issues. It seems that, in every incarnation of the forum, the subjects of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoptions, trans rights, etc. seem quite popular. If somebody who is not an advocate for full LGBT rights posts in one of the many threads, they are almost instantly called out for it by just about everybody else participating in the discussion. My opinion is that asking questions like "Should same-sex marriages be legal?" is inherently misleading—it implies that answering "no" is a legitimate viewpoint that is treated with equal reverence as answering "yes." Not only does this lead to completely unproductive discussions, but it can also cause great discomfort to QUILTBAG folks and their allies.

I believe our attitude should be this: Marginalisation is wrong, and if you disagree, shut up and go away. Instead of monotonous threads about whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, we should be discussing how we can go about creating a societal change that would allow said legalisation to happen. Because frankly, I don't give a shit about anybody who doesn't "believe" in same-sex marriage—and I believe most of you feel the same way. Again, giving that stuff legitimacy is a lose-lose situation, and I believe that more efforts should be placed on real, constructive discussion.

 

[Murkrow]

One of the main reasons I barely if ever post in serious business is because I'm afraid I'll get called out by everyone, no matter what my opinion is. In fact sometimes I don't even want to post an opinion, and I'm just curious about something, and want to be more informed about the subject at hand. But I'd rather remain in ignorance and risk offending people in future because I don't understand fully the subject at hand, because of how condescending and aggressive people can be towards people daring not be as well-informed as they are.
So for me the idea of this whole "shut up and go away" thing makes me incredibly uncomfortable and worries me that it'll get worse than it already is.

Aside from that, I don't think it's a very appealing idea. Sure everyone here agrees on some issues, but there comes a point where not everyone agrees. I for one would not like to see a thread discussing how to create a change in society when I don't agree with what it's discussing - unless at least a threads about whether that's the right thing or not could be made in the first place, like they already can. (That is if, I weren't too afraid to post in them!)

 

[Aletheia]

So... you're going to moderate debates by deciding which view points would be marginalizing certain groups and then making presenting of such view points inappropriate?

That sounds kind of stupid, considering this is a debate where people are supposed to present views and arguments, and I don't see the point in having a debate if you're going to throw out some of those views. A debate is one thing; an attempt to discuss solutions to a problem is another.

wow what am I getting myself into

Edit because I have sporadic bursts of thought: After all, debates exist for the very reason that, no, not everyone can agree whether something is a legitimate viewpoint or not. You can't just tell people who are against same-sex marriages to get out of the debate thread simply because you disagree with them (and there's a large number of QUILTBAG members), because then it's not a debate anymore!

 

[shy ♡]

I'm sorta confused... At first I thought I agreed with you: I fully support safe environments, I dislike devil's advocates, yes. But moving along in your argument... ehhh. Doesn't the fact that, once someone who opposes same sex marriage comes in, they get trashed, prove that this is not something we should be worried about? In fact, it isn't a major occurrence at all; most of the debate that happens is on more serious topics. I think this actually creates the opposite effect to what you suggested: the fact that opposers to lgbt rights get tossed out so fast surely proves that lgbt-members have a place here, and would not make them feel uncomfortable.

I'd also point out there aren't specific threads, iirc, about same-sex marriage, but rather about 1) homosexuality, which has turned more into an lgbt-in-general thread, 2) gender, 3) quiltbag, which isn't in serious business, and then a bunch of other feminism-related stuff, like the racism thread and 'masculism'. And also religion. And then random other debate threads.

Either way, tossing out arguments or people who hold those arguments simply because you oppose them doesn't work. There are infractions, and when people get enough infractions they're banned from the debating hall, but that's for actual... 'bad' behavior, stuff. So basically: if it's bad enough it will get infracted, if it isn't, debate it.

I do think we can help implement trigger warnings, though, to support a safe environment. Just, people don't often link to or post triggering things, so it doesn't come up often.

 

[Datura]

Just a quick note before I respond to you all: When I use TCoD as an example, it's not because I think something's wrong with the way Serious Business is handled. This thread (and the article that inspired it) are about the internet as a whole; if it's alright, I'd like that to be the focus of the discussion.

One of the main reasons I barely if ever post in serious business is because I'm afraid I'll get called out by everyone, no matter what my opinion is. In fact sometimes I don't even want to post an opinion, and I'm just curious about something, and want to be more informed about the subject at hand. But I'd rather remain in ignorance and risk offending people in future because I don't understand fully the subject at hand, because of how condescending and aggressive people can be towards people daring not be as well-informed as they are.
So for me the idea of this whole "shut up and go away" thing makes me incredibly uncomfortable and worries me that it'll get worse than it already is.

Apparently I wasn't very clear when I said that. Of course it's okay to post because you're confused or genuinely curious; there is nothing wrong with asking for information and/or clarification! It's people who come in with destructive ideas and try to pass them off as legitimate. And I'm saying this in the context of the entire internet, not just TCoD. I'm sorry you find it intimidating to post here. I think I can safely speak for all regular posters in Serious Business when I say that no one wants you to feel like you can't ask questions. Posts like the one you made here are great ways to contribute to a discussion!

Aside from that, I don't think it's a very appealing idea. Sure everyone here agrees on some issues, but there comes a point where not everyone agrees. I for one would not like to see a thread discussing how to create a change in society when I don't agree with what it's discussing - unless at least a threads about whether that's the right thing or not could be made in the first place, like they already can. (That is if, I weren't too afraid to post in them!)

And it's perfectly okay to have dissenting opinions, with the caveat that they must be a) logical and b) not potentially harmful to any persons. These criteria are not very subjective, as far as I can tell. If we continue to use my QUILTBAG example, a person who comes in and says "Same-sex relationships are immoral because..." is not only driving the conversation into needless absurdity, but possibly making a certain portion of the population feel unwelcome and/or unsafe. (And I know that TCoD is special in that anyone who disagrees with QUILTBAG folks gets pounced on immediately. This is not the case with the entire internet, which is the focus of the article.)

So... you're going to moderate debates by deciding which view points would be marginalizing certain groups and then making presenting of such view points inappropriate?

It's not a matter of "deciding." Something is either harmful or it isn't. Like I said above, this isn't a subjective thing—unless you also consider the forum's "no flaming" policy subjective.

That sounds kind of stupid, considering this is a debate where people are supposed to present views and arguments, and I don't see the point in having a debate if you're going to throw out some of those views. A debate is one thing; an attempt to discuss solutions to a problem is another.

What we're doing right now? We're debating. You disagree with the assertions I made in my original post. Your opinion is valid, even if I disagree wholeheartedly; you present your points without implicating a portion of the community. This is what debates should be. And it's how most debates on TCoD end up! Which is, y'know, great! I'm not trying to completely overhaul Butterfree's policies. Heck, I don't even think they need to be changed. My intention with this thread is to open up a dialogue about how we handle serious discussions on the internet.

My opinion is that whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not is not worthy of being a debate. (One thing I love about TCoD is that "Debating Hall" was changed to "Serious Business" so we could host serious discussion in addition to debates.)

Edit because I have sporadic bursts of thought: After all, debates exist for the very reason that, no, not everyone can agree whether something is a legitimate viewpoint or not. You can't just tell people who are against same-sex marriages to get out of the debate thread simply because you disagree with them (and there's a large number of QUILTBAG members), because then it's not a debate anymore!

This kind of thinking is exactly what I'm addressing, and what the folks at Tiger Beatdown are arguing against. The thing is, one can gauge whether or not a viewpoint is welcome in a discussion. Not every argument holds the same weight or validity. It's a bit of an extreme example, but would you want a white nationalist vehemently spewing a bunch of racist rhetoric in one of our many threads about race? The line must be drawn somewhere. And it's fairly easy for a reasonable person to figure out where that line should be.

I'm sorta confused... At first I thought I agreed with you: I fully support safe environments, I dislike devil's advocates, yes. But moving along in your argument... ehhh. Doesn't the fact that, once someone who opposes same sex marriage comes in, they get trashed, prove that this is not something we should be worried about? In fact, it isn't a major occurrence at all; most of the debate that happens is on more serious topics. I think this actually creates the opposite effect to what you suggested: the fact that opposers to lgbt rights get tossed out so fast surely proves that lgbt-members have a place here, and would not make them feel uncomfortable.

Perhaps I should have thought more before using TCoD as an example. You're absolutely right; this is one of those forums where anybody who comes in and "disagrees" with QUILTBAG equality gets a good beating. This is not the case everywhere on the internet; in many places, the right to spew homophobic/sexist/racist/etc. arguments is validated under the guise of "free spech," and that's just wrong. The rest of your post also addresses TCoD, and I agree with it for the most part... except...

So basically: if it's bad enough it will get infracted, if it isn't, debate it.

Why? Where is the value in arguing whether or not somebody is entitled to fundamental civil rights? There are an infinite number of serious topics two people could disagree about, but this is one case where I would argue that opposition to QUILTBAG rights directly harms and implicates people, as well as compromising the safe space we're all trying to maintain.

 

[Ether's Bane]

I would just like to bring up something:

[/quote]There are an infinite number of serious topics two people could disagree about...[/quote]

Regarding this, yes, I do agree that QUILTBAG rights and the like should be supported by all, but I would like to bring up something even more worrying.

When the debate topic is quite legitimate and has more or less split the forum down the middle, if the side you take isn't the one supported by some certain members, you will almost certainly be torn to shreds (maybe by those members in question) because they have such an "aura" about them that many are afraid to disagree with them. This is something I would like to see go, as these certain members' viewpoints are implicitly accepted by the rest of us as the status quo, and that created a feeling of intimidation when you genuinely disagree with them, and I don't like this.

Yes, you probably know who I mean, though I won't say who.

 

[shy ♡]

Why? Where is the value in arguing whether or not somebody is entitled to fundamental civil rights? There are an infinite number of serious topics two people could disagree about, but this is one case where I would argue that opposition to QUILTBAG rights directly harms and implicates people, as well as compromising the safe space we're all trying to maintain.

I'll add another caveat; if it's not infract-worthy and not laugh-worthy.

I would just like to bring up something:

Regarding this, yes, I do agree that QUILTBAG rights and the like should be supported by all, but I would like to bring up something even more worrying.

When the debate topic is quite legitimate and has more or less split the forum down the middle, if the side you take isn't the one supported by some certain members, you will almost certainly be torn to shreds (maybe by those members in question) because they have such an "aura" about them that many are afraid to disagree with them. This is something I would like to see go, as these certain members' viewpoints are implicitly accepted by the rest of us as the status quo, and that created a feeling of intimidation when you genuinely disagree with them, and I don't like this.

Yes, you probably know who I mean, though I won't say who.

I actually don't know any of the people you're referring to. If you feel intimidated by someone, just... consider that they're people like you and then think up a valid counter-argument to what they're saying?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I would just like to bring up something:

There are an infinite number of serious topics two people could disagree about...

Regarding this, yes, I do agree that QUILTBAG rights and the like should be supported by all, but I would like to bring up something even more worrying.

When the debate topic is quite legitimate and has more or less split the forum down the middle, if the side you take isn't the one supported by some certain members, you will almost certainly be torn to shreds (maybe by those members in question) because they have such an "aura" about them that many are afraid to disagree with them. This is something I would like to see go, as these certain members' viewpoints are implicitly accepted by the rest of us as the status quo, and that created a feeling of intimidation when you genuinely disagree with them, and I don't like this.

Yes, you probably know who I mean, though I won't say who.

I know who you mean. No one is afraid to disagree with them. If someone responds to something you've said and disagrees with you and you're afraid to respond, it's probably because deep down you know you're wrong and you're afraid that if you keep arguing, you'll have something you believe in proven wrong or rendered invalid and you can't deal with that. Luckily, I learned a long time ago that it's okay to be convinced to change my views by rational debate, which is why I no longer believe some ridiculous things I used to. The people you're talking about are among those who were able to convince me by rational debate. I wish people would stop using these supposedly intimidating people (who are really quite lovely) as scapegoats for their own insecurities about their beliefs.

Trufax.

 

[Butterfree]

The post you're linking to, at a brief skim, appears to be about commenting sections on blogs, articles, etc.

In which case I agree to an extent: if you write a blog post celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage somewhere, say, and people come into the comments expecting that "free speech" entitles them to respond with gay-bashing, it is perfectly legitimate for you to just delete the comment and say, "Sorry, I'm not going to host a debate about the validity of same-sex marriage on this blog or give your ignorant opinions legitimacy."

But you can't apply the same logic to something that is specifically designed as a debate about the validity of same-sex marriage. How are you going to debate about anything if you've previously decided to throw out dissenting opinions? Discussing how to effect social change is great - by all means let's - but that isn't the same thing as a debate. If there is a debate, then dissenting opinions must be admitted - and someone looking for a safe space obviously should not look for it in a debate thread. That's common sense. (Meanwhile, somebody stirring up a debate in blog comments legitimately is invading what could otherwise have been assumed to be a safe space - the situation isn't actually comparable to a debate forum such as this one.)

Disallowing debates of certain subjects altogether in a designated debate area is just being segregationalist, giving up on even persuading people that we're right in favor of just putting our fingers in our ears and going "lalala, I'm not listening". No matter how ignorant and stupid their opinions, surely the right thing to do is to be ready to actually challenge them on it instead of just merrily locking them out where they'll continue being ignorant.

(Also, dismissing devil's advocates in an actual debate purely because they're devil's advocates is an ad hominem fallacy.)

 

[Aletheia]

...why exactly is anything that doesn't conform to your opinions "absurd?" Clearly someone out there thinks that not legalizing same-sex marriages is the way to go; who are you to tell them that what they believe doesn't make sense?

 

[Tarvos]

Datura, isn't your argument just basically "free speech has its limits"? I mean, yeah, sure this is a forum for serious discussion, but I am of the opinion that there's dissenting viewpoints and there are dissenting viewpoints. If someone posts that same-sex marriage should be disallowed or forbidden, because "gays are unnatural" or "it is against my religion", this seems like a particular thing that is just not going to be constructive to any discussion. There's just too many ways to shoot that down and give counterexamples it is unfunny. Many people here are QUILTBAG (and those who are cisgendered heterosexual are still as a rule sympathisants for the movement) and it just seems like an entirely self-defeating move to walk into a group of QUILTBAG people and post the very thing you know is going to set them off faster than a horde of angry wasps.

Of course, if the argument runs along some judicial line or is just an argument against the failures of the phenomenon of marriage itself, it's a different issue. But the thing is is that people do get tired of debating the naturality (for lack of a better word) of homosexuality or for that matter, the inane religious commentary that marriage "is for a man and a woman" (which is nonsense - in Sweden I am pretty sure the national church gives its blessings to homosexual couples, and in the Netherlands it depends on the church, but there are plenty churches who will sanction gay marriage).

Furthermore, I find it offensive to suggest that gay people should not be entitled to the same rights as straight people (just leaving out for the moment the complications for transgender people etc etc, to simplify the discussion a bit). Who is anyone to take away anyone's basic human rights? Of course, you can ask whether marriage constitutes a basic human right, but then you're entering a different discussion. Most debating posts on a subject like this made by people who aren't into the subject matter always seem equally fraught with prejudice and ignorance and that really hinders basic discussion.

We should allow dissenting viewpoints, always, that is a part of discussion and science and rationality and it's our modicum and vehicle to inspire change and greater things, but there's a limit to how far we can go. Even in a serious business thread, homophobia and such have no place. Never, ever. There should be no platform for this. Free speech is a misnomer.

...why exactly is anything that doesn't conform to your opinions "absurd?" Clearly someone out there thinks that not legalizing same-sex marriages is the way to go; who are you to tell them that what they believe doesn't make sense?

Like I said above, non-legalization is offensive to many people. As the witty banner puts it - "I didn't ask her to civil union me!" That's why. Some opinions are simply absurd and offensive no matter which way you put this. I've already explained above that it depends on the way you phrase the argument, but most people run the legalization argument through some kind of religious filter, which means it eventually boils down to "God said so", and that under no circumstances constitutes an argument any self-respecting ethicist would accept.

This is also a serious business thread, which means anything you're posting is instantly fair game. What isn't tolerated on most other sections of the forum is to an extent allowed here to stimulate discussion, but since it's open, any poster needs to realise that their opinion is then also open to criticism.

 

[Ether's Bane]

I know who you mean. No one is afraid to disagree with them. If someone responds to something you've said and disagrees with you and you're afraid to respond, it's probably because deep down you know you're wrong and you're afraid that if you keep arguing, you'll have something you believe in proven wrong or rendered invalid and you can't deal with that. Luckily, I learned a long time ago that it's okay to be convinced to change my views by rational debate, which is why I no longer believe some ridiculous things I used to.

Understandable, but how do we know that these certain people are always right on, well, everything? That's more of the point I was trying to make - yes, it very well could be that, but there's no way to prove that these people are right on every issue ever.

The people you're talking about are among those who were able to convince me by rational debate. I wish people would stop using these supposedly intimidating people (who are really quite lovely) as scapegoats for their own insecurities about their beliefs.

Okay, first off, I have nothing against them - in fact, I have deep respect for most, if not all of them, but I don't think that the opinions of those few members should be blindly taken as truth, which I can't help but sense goes on quite a bit here, and which I have been tempted to do every now and again, despite not fully examining the issue at hand, and blind belief does not foster a good debating/serious discussion board.

 

[Minish]

Okay, first off, I have nothing against them - in fact, I have deep respect for most, if not all of them, but I don't think that the opinions of those few members should be blindly taken as truth, which I can't help but sense goes on quite a bit here, and which I have been tempted to do every now and again, despite not fully examining the issue at hand, and blind belief does not foster a good debating/serious discussion board.

If you have a problem with 'those few members', by all means, report them to the mod team. What good is making passive-aggressive remarks like this, other than justification for assuming the underdog position? I don't understand where you're getting thise ~blindly taken as truth~ idea, who exactly does this??

There seem to be faaaaar more people choosing to believe they're martyrs against those liberal queer meanies here than people who genuinely take their word as gospel. Blind belief? Seriously? We periodically have a massive sprawling debate in this very board.

 

[ultraviolet]

Adding to what Cirrus said, I'm really not getting where this is coming from - who is it, exactly, who's blindly believing this group of people? Why on earth do you feel you're expected to agree with them? Naturally if you present a position contrary to the majority you're going to be expected to back up what you say, but this is true of everyone who posts in srs bsnss. It's also unfair to blame this group of people for apparently 'implying the status quo', and then blaming them for you not wanting to speak up about your own opinions. I certainly don't think one group of people represent the forum's views as a whole, especially when so many don't like to debate about their beliefs (which is fine); if you disagree with them, that's fine, but you can hardly blame them for misrepresenting you if a) you don't want to speak up and b) nobody is trying to represent you (or the forum) anyway. It's embarrassing to be proven wrong or unsteady in debate, sure, but it's hardly a reason to feel intimidated when you realise that this is how basically everyone forms their beliefs. Gotta break eggs to make an omelette, it's all a learning curve, etc. Sorry if this is disjointed, i am le tired and iphones are crap for typing with.

 

[Tarvos]

does that even happen on this forum? I don't know anyone who just believes what a certain group (who? the mods?) says

 

[Saith]

Wow.
So you want to make this board into even more of a circlejerk?

 

[Music Dragon]

In Effercon's defense, I think we all know we would instantly convert to Islam if Butterfree did.

 

[Zero Moment]

In Effercon's defense, I think we all know we would instantly convert to Islam if Butterfree did.

Even if we already were.

 

[Butterfree]

Yeah, minions. On with the burkas, I say!


Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you actually wants me/us/anybody to do about this, Effercon. If a lot of people agree with one person, for any reason, they're going to disagree with somebody who disagrees. Are we going to ban agreeing with people, or making additional arguments against a post directed at somebody else? What? It's just not reasonable.

Also keep in mind that even if people on a forum are flocking to disagree with you, if you are actually making a good argument they can't really touch you. And if you're making a bad argument, then - let's face it - people ought to disagree with you; you deserve to know if there's a crucial flaw in the reasoning behind your opinions.

(Though I remember Serebii used to have a "one-on-one debates" thing at some point, where one person would challenge another to a debate on a particular subject and they'd just get a thread to themselves to discuss it, with no one else allowed to post. Would that be something you'd be interested in?)

 

[Tarvos]

Wow.
So you want to make this board into even more of a circlejerk?

At least we're circlejerking while enjoying ourselves, having a grand old time making the world a better place.