|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 19, 2020 14:49:20 GMT -5
Which illustrates perfectly why there must be limitations on speech. Otherwise the hecklers steal all the oxygen in the room, shit on the carpets and set the ceiling on fire. It kept happening again and again and instead of having some moral backbone the mods capitulated among cries of "why can't we just get along?!" because some of the guilty posters had contributed elsewhere in the forum. "Be polite to each other" is a fucking stupid rule when it is applied in a vacuum because it punishes people for speaking out when others are acting in bad faith. I'll be the first to admit that the mods were all over the map with that in dakka... But the "Be polite to each other" is a fucking speech limitation wally. You can counter bad faith arguments with GOOD arguments just fine... just don't be an asshole about it. That's what the policy boils down to. Yet, we can't stop being assholes to one another on that forum so Dakka did the only thing they could do...which is to ban those topics.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 19, 2020 15:11:27 GMT -5
They had the option to ban people from the OT forum for repeated bad faith arguments (which in itself is, I argue, breaking rule #1) but would rather just throw out the entire subject. I'm not contesting that there wasn't a limitation on speech, I'm saying it wasn't enough and wasn't being applied correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 19, 2020 15:32:02 GMT -5
Banning those topics while letting users freely move around is not a great help. Video Games, 40K Background and Media have all become minefields because mostly the same people that go into off topic happily carry on there. Last I checked, it was pretty difficult to even have a background discussion about women in the 40K section (and I'm not talking about female SM). Media especially became the next cesspool and any movie/series that has a remote whiff of what they term as the 'SJWs' is dead on arrival.
Be nice is a good rule to try and live up to, but you won't lose access if you're not, you're just shutting down anything you dislike because rule #1 violations.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 19, 2020 15:36:21 GMT -5
They had the option to ban people from the OT forum for repeated bad faith arguments (which in itself is, I argue, breaking rule #1) but would rather just throw out the entire subject. I'm not contesting that there wasn't a limitation on speech, I'm saying it wasn't enough and wasn't being applied correctly. Banning for repeated bad faith arguments is a slippery slope sorta thing as you're basically asking the mods to referee the conversation. They didn't (and shouldn't) sign up to that. The next best thing is to try to keep the conversation civil. Even if a posters keeps going on about a topic in bad faith, other posters should either respond accordingly while observing Rule #1 or simply ignore it. That's how you keep a thread open for others to participate. This isn't a heckler's veto scenario as it's impossible to "shout out the other side"...you're on a web discussion forum.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 19, 2020 17:47:43 GMT -5
If 50% of a thread is meaningless drivel that's only there to derail the thread then it has effectively been drowned out.
Also, what? That's EXACTLY what a mod should be in the first place! It's even short for "moderator"!
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 19, 2020 18:28:58 GMT -5
I think the individual needs to take more responsibility in forums than other places especially. Almost all forums these days have an "Ignore" option somewhere. If someone or someones are being repetitive douches not only can you simply not engage them, you also have the option of not seeing their drivel. It's something that I think is used far too infrequently.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 19, 2020 18:30:02 GMT -5
Doesn't matter if the rest of the thread doesn't do the same.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 19, 2020 18:41:38 GMT -5
I have a problem when standards are overlooked. A number of people on my facebook friends list at the moment at reposting "kill the pedophiles" posts, or some variation thereof. Not that I really disagree with the concept, but it does technically violate the terms and service of facebook, yet I have yet to see a single one censored. That is my concern with censorship. Often times the standards are set with a bias, or only really applied to protect the popular opinion. If the internet had been around in the 1950's and we were all having this discussion then we could very well be discussing if talking about equal rights for Gays was an immoral topic to be banned. To start off, standards without bias don't exist. We're all people born and raised in a society, which imposes certain views on us from the moment when learn how to speak (or even before, by say being baptised versus not). We have to find the standard that everyone is most comfortable morality wise (i.e. is it actually victimizing someone or is it just icky to our own bias?) while taking biases into account. This is exactly what companies like FB are doing, finding that bias from which the profitable majority comes, which does include the above group. The T&C are meaningless in that sense. But lets take your post example. While that is certainly a common and understandable opinion given the emotional factors, lets look at the other side of expressing it. Not all paedophiles have to or will molest children, its a sickness. People can be treated and/or watched for this sickness. Does allowing people to post "kill the paedophiles" harm more children in the long run, by driving these people into hiding instead of encouraging to find treatment or some form of help to try and prevent it? That is, normalizing the practice of publicly discussing it as an illness, without vilifying those who DON'T act on it. To carry on with the above, not letting people say that on FB certainly won't make paedophilia more widespread or acceptable, because we as society don't think it should be for good reason. So would limiting people's ability to say kill on FB and public be worth the trade off IF (and big if) that would enable society to treat more of them and hopefully have less victims? It might not be popular banning it, but would you if it helped in the long run? I think the equal rights for LGBTQ+ in the 50's argument is another factor, not part of the same as the above. Advocating for that isn't harming anyone else even indirectly. While saying kill this or that groups of people might do harm in the short or long term. You're correct that a standard itself can't be unbiased. However you can have an unbiased, nonselective enforcement of that standard. If something is the rule, it's the rule and no one should get a free pass. As for the pedo issue I totally agree that not all of them are cut from the same cloth. Those that are simply messed in the head I would show some amount of resect for if they just want help in managing their disease, although I would never trust any of them around children again. When some people want it to be recognized as just another form of sexuality, I am actually torn on this. I can see how that argument could be made, but then we'd have to draw moral lines (and even legal ones now) on what sexualities we can discriminate against for certain issues. I also think it somewhat delegitimizes the standing of people of the homosexual community, which is and of itself an oddity, as it was often stated years ago that recognizing homosexuality doesn't take away from heterosexuality. Perhaps it's one of those times when we are allowed to believe two contradictory things at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Aug 19, 2020 18:55:02 GMT -5
I think there would have been mods who were advocating for just banning the individuals from OT instead of taking politics as a whole out behind the shed, but were likely overruled by others.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 20, 2020 0:16:23 GMT -5
As for the pedo issue I totally agree that not all of them are cut from the same cloth. Those that are simply messed in the head I would show some amount of resect for if they just want help in managing their disease, although I would never trust any of them around children again. When some people want it to be recognized as just another form of sexuality, I am actually torn on this. I can see how that argument could be made, but then we'd have to draw moral lines (and even legal ones now) on what sexualities we can discriminate against for certain issues. I also think it somewhat delegitimizes the standing of people of the homosexual community, which is and of itself an oddity, as it was often stated years ago that recognizing homosexuality doesn't take away from heterosexuality. Perhaps it's one of those times when we are allowed to believe two contradictory things at the same time. Its not really contradictory because this leads back to the issue of victimization and not rights. Homosexuality is between two grown up and mentally developed adults where we can assume both know what they're doing. In this case giving rights here clearly clashes with rights of others. You can recognize it, but still treat it, as it would be harmful to act upon.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 20, 2020 1:23:05 GMT -5
As for the pedo issue I totally agree that not all of them are cut from the same cloth. Those that are simply messed in the head I would show some amount of resect for if they just want help in managing their disease, although I would never trust any of them around children again. When some people want it to be recognized as just another form of sexuality, I am actually torn on this. I can see how that argument could be made, but then we'd have to draw moral lines (and even legal ones now) on what sexualities we can discriminate against for certain issues. I also think it somewhat delegitimizes the standing of people of the homosexual community, which is and of itself an oddity, as it was often stated years ago that recognizing homosexuality doesn't take away from heterosexuality. Perhaps it's one of those times when we are allowed to believe two contradictory things at the same time. Its not really contradictory because this leads back to the issue of victimization and not rights. Homosexuality is between two grown up and mentally developed adults where we can assume both know what they're doing. In this case giving rights here clearly clashes with rights of others. You can recognize it, but still treat it, as it would be harmful to act upon. There are members of the pedo community that have strictly a "look, but don't touch" philosophy to children. Many have never offended, and never will. If they come forward and are recognized by society do we limit them at all? Are they still allowed to be teachers, work at daycares, allowed to adopt, etc. ? I would want to say no, even if they have never offended. In the US this would require some amendments to antidiscrimination laws if they were officially recognized as a sexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 20, 2020 2:01:52 GMT -5
There are members of the pedo community that have strictly a "look, but don't touch" philosophy to children. Many have never offended, and never will. If they come forward and are recognized by society do we limit them at all? Are they still allowed to be teachers, work at daycares, allowed to adopt, etc. ? I would want to say no, even if they have never offended. In the US this would require some amendments to antidiscrimination laws if they were officially recognized as a sexuality. Before going over the whole thing and circling back to freedom of speech, I want to address the practical catch 22 in your antidiscrimination comment. We don't know who is a paedophile, it might be your neighbour, co-worker or even family member. Are they still allowed now? Yeah they are, because we don't know and we know they fulfil these jobs in part because it allows them access to children. You can't fire them now, because you have no idea who they are unless they inform someone, the chance of which is tiny. They only come up after doing something which outs them, i.e. victimizing someone. After which they of course never work in such places anymore. So would being covered by antidiscrimination laws really change anything practically? You still get to fire and/or not hire them if they committed crimes. Yes, having non-acting peadophiles openly working there might cause a lot of problems for people, but then at least they're far more visible right? "We didn't know" is usually the first thing you hear AFTER something terrible happens. So I pose you the question that IF we recognize them as a sexuality and IF the completely fall under existing laws (I will argue to not do that just as is below), would it make a difference in practice? I would argue not, because we have no idea now, while they can happily fulfil these jobs/adopt/have kids at the moment anyway. On the broader issue of law and sexuality. I'm ok with recognizing them as a sexuality but in exchange there is a trade-off, the recognition that they can never act on their urges in any way in exchange for certain protections. So for example, you limit freedom of speech somewhat, to stop the vilification of non-acting paedophiles, because this drives them underground. They get a recognized status as a sexuality under antidiscrimination laws but with a very important clause. They cannot work in professions with children, similar to how you don't let convicted criminals or people with mental illness into certain fields. The trade-off here is that you can't be fired from your job as a say grocery worker or at a call center because of your sexuality. Here non-acting paedophiles get protection because this is what we want, to encourage them to be open and seek help/support. Adoption/having their own kids is a much more difficult line, you could stop adoption, because this can again be tied to certain criteria, but you can never stop them from having kids. As above though, in practice this doesn't change current reality. I know that for the general public this is an emotional topic with a lot of gut feelings (to be fair, I share those reactions even when trying to view this more practically/rationally), but looking to the long term effects might save potential victims down the line. Of course this is so politically unpopular I don't expect anyone to attempt this for at least decades. Of course the above is entirely hypothetical given sexuality and freedom of speech challenges, which would require thorough review first. But would you consider that if they actually turn into a net positive result, even if they are massively unpopular, tying it back into the topic a little.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 20, 2020 8:26:19 GMT -5
From my perspective a majority of society is against pedophilia for the same reason homosexuality was: because it's "icky". Not because of any logical reason, but because of blind faith. It's disturbing.
This does not, obviously, mean that I'm in favour of legalizing pedophilia. The way I see it (and this is going to be unpopular as all fuck) is that sex with children does not necessarily have to cause harm per se. However, like juggling nitroglycerine bottles in a dynamite factory, the risk of something going colossally wrong is so massive that the only reasonable response by society is to simply blanket ban it. It's theoretically possible to drive while drunk without any adverse effects, but we ban it all the same because the risk for harm is way too great; the risk in this case would probably be higher still.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 20, 2020 9:05:18 GMT -5
From my perspective a majority of society is against pedophilia for the same reason homosexuality was: because it's "icky". Not because of any logical reason, but because of blind faith. It's disturbing. I don't think its necessarily blind faith, its the emotional response to a socially created view. If you use the term the general public immediately thinks of people raping 6 year olds. You need to disconnect the idea of the general public that having those feelings means your guilty of victimizing anyone automatically, but as we only hear about perpetrators it gives the idea that they must all be guilty. Given what we generally tend to know about % of population sexuality wise, I assume there must be far more people with those feelings out there than there are actually acting on them. But how do you combat that view? Evil paedophile cabal conspiracies are growing bigger and with a more global audience, would you have to crack down on this? Probably, but that would mean infringing on rights.
|
|
|
Post by maddocgrotsnik on Feb 19, 2023 6:13:47 GMT -5
Let’s be perfectly clear here.
Free Speech Absolutists do not really want free speech.
Oh no.
They want freedom from consequence. They want to be able to spout whatever wibbling nonsense they wish, and ever ever ever face a single consequence. But as ever, only for them.
Churches demand their teachings be enshrined in Law, because anything else repression against them specifically. But also the right to burn books, and pressure schools into banning books which might expose young minds to other ways of seeing the world.
Bigots of all shape and sizes want to be able to spout their hatred, inspire others to do horrendous deeds, and be shielded from the fall out. One can’t possibly hold an instigator to account, apparently.
Look at Jeremy Clarkson’s recent debacle. Published in a prominent national “news” rag, calling for Meghan Windsor to be paraded naked through the streets, covered in shit and being abused by crowds. He had that free speech. You can tell, because some Cunt of an editor printed it. And no doubt paid the tiny cocked petrolhead Wank puffin a decent amount of money for the privilege. He now moans that spouting hateful nonsense has….consequences.
You are of course entitled to say what you want, on any subject. But nobody should have freedom from consequence. Ever.
And don’t forget, nobody owes you a platform. You are not entitled to an audience, willing or unwilling.
|
|