|
Simpey -- an idiot's opinion that the world is flat isn't equally valid as an expert's researched position that the world is more of a roundish shape (approximating a sphere).
Everyone is allowed an opinion -- just because you have one doesn't mean that opinion is the equal to another.
It's one of the biggest fallacies out there, and goes by the name of false equivalency.
Wouldn't that be a fact?
That is to say one can prove and/or disprove that the earth is either flat or roundishly shaped. Would not this be the false equivalency?
Simpey -- an idiot's opinion that the world is flat isn't equally valid as an expert's researched position that the world is more of a roundish shape (approximating a sphere).
Everyone is allowed an opinion -- just because you have one doesn't mean that opinion is the equal to another.
It's one of the biggest fallacies out there, and goes by the name of false equivalency.
Wouldn't that be a fact?
That is to say one can prove and/or disprove that the earth is either flat or roundishly shaped. Would not this be the false equivalency?
You'd think it would be an accepted fact. However, this is not a satire site.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, but what is the ration basis that all opinions are not equally valid or acceptable? And further who is to decide that. That's pretty far outside of a mods place or , I don't know, qualification. So who decides? Isn't that basically the point of a forum, to discuss different views, opinions and experiences, and to be able to see that of others, and decide for yourself?Why? I don't see any rational basis to argue that all opinions are equally valid or acceptable.
If you passionate about something, you're not impartial. Moderation has to be applied EQUALLY.
I think that's what some of us use it for, but that isnt necessarily Paizo's purpose for establishing it.
To answer your question: "Who is to decide that?" I think it's the forum owner's right to determine what is and isnt acceptable on their forums:
If they want to say that swearing is not okay, that's up to them.
If they want to say abuse is not okay, that's up to them.
If they want to say that espousing leftist views is not okay, that's up to them.
I'm willing to be persuaded on this, but my first instinct is that the owner of a site has total authority as to what is and isnt acceptable and what will and won't be moderated. I dont understand the position that they "should" be evenhanded or grant equal airing to both sides of any given issue. (To be clear, I'd personally prefer it if they did do that - I like reading people's justifications for their ideas, even the offensive ones. Nonetheless, I dont see that Paizo owe me that).
You'd think it would be an accepted fact. However, this is not a satire site.Simpey -- an idiot's opinion that the world is flat isn't equally valid as an expert's researched position that the world is more of a roundish shape (approximating a sphere).
Everyone is allowed an opinion -- just because you have one doesn't mean that opinion is the equal to another.
It's one of the biggest fallacies out there, and goes by the name of false equivalency.
Wouldn't that be a fact?
That is to say one can prove and/or disprove that the earth is either flat or roundishly shaped. Would not this be the false equivalency?
Nor is it a hate site. It is a place that kids can access.
The OP has an agenda. It isn't free speech.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simpey -- an idiot's opinion that the world is flat isn't equally valid as an expert's researched position that the world is more of a roundish shape (approximating a sphere).
Everyone is allowed an opinion -- just because you have one doesn't mean that opinion is the equal to another.
It's one of the biggest fallacies out there, and goes by the name of false equivalency.
Wouldn't that be a fact?
That is to say one can prove and/or disprove that the earth is either flat or roundishly shaped. Would not this be the false equivalency?
Just because something can be proven false does not mean there will not be large numbers of people who cling to it as truth: sometimes all the more so because of their feeling of being persecuted or feeling of cleverness to seeing past the 'common' view.
Holocaust deniers.
Moon landing deniers.
Chemtrail nuts.
'Lizard people' conspiracy nuts.
Anti-vaxxers.
Jack Chick.
The list goes on.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, but what is the ration basis that all opinions are not equally valid or acceptable? And further who is to decide that. That's pretty far outside of a mods place or , I don't know, qualification. So who decides? Isn't that basically the point of a forum, to discuss different views, opinions and experiences, and to be able to see that of others, and decide for yourself?Why? I don't see any rational basis to argue that all opinions are equally valid or acceptable.
If you passionate about something, you're not impartial. Moderation has to be applied EQUALLY.
You do realize forums are for discussions of what the forum was designed for by the owners of said site/forum. It is not a public venue where Freedom of Speech is ok. So with that being said, Paizo decides whether or not what is said on these forums is ok or not. So it is not nearly outside of the mods/developers place to moderate a post based on their terms of service that we all sign when we make a profile with this site. The only qualification needed is what Paizo allows for their staff members which I am sure have an in house system of rules that we are not privy to which is ok as well. But the only rules we need to worry about are the ones in the terms of service which you agreed to I am sure, since you are able to post here :)
Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, but what is the ration basis that all opinions are not equally valid or acceptable? And further who is to decide that. That's pretty far outside of a mods place or , I don't know, qualification. So who decides?
Generally speaking, while we do try to be as even handed as possible, we frown upon the expression of opinions on our messageboards when they are intentionally malicious or harmful to other forum users and/or other humans.
Many of these issues tend to evoke strong, often culturally deep-rooted, opinions (on any side of the issue) which quickly leads to flamewars and personal insults. As we as moderators gain experience with the paizo.com community we might recognize particular issues to be problematic to the point where we don't mind discussion of the issue in general, but we are leery of having that discussion on paizo.com where we've seen things repeatedly get out of hand.
Isn't that basically the point of a forum, to discuss different views, opinions and experiences, and to be able to see that of others, and decide for yourself?
While the point of forums in general is to build a community where people can share ideas and experiences, ask questions and get feedback, paizo.com is particularly focused on the Pathfinder RPG, other roleplaying games, and generally any gaming-related subject. There are some topics which are inappropriate for our forums and while we don't care if people want to discuss them elsewhere, we have determined paizo.com is not the place for those discussions.
Moderation at Paizo is a team effort with the ultimate goal being to foster a friendly environment for the Pathfinder Community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something can be proven false does not mean there will not be large numbers of people who cling to it as truth: sometimes all the more so because of their feeling of being persecuted or feeling of cleverness to seeing past the 'common' view.'Lizard people' conspiracy nuts.
Are you saying the Lizard Men have a secret conspiracy in Golarion to steal all the human walnuts & such?!? Shocking!
|
|
Generally speaking, while we do try to be as even handed as possible, we frown upon the expression of opinions on our messageboards when they are intentionally malicious or harmful to other forum users and/or other humans.
Many of these issues tend to evoke strong, often culturally deep-rooted, opinions (on any side of the issue) which quickly leads to flamewars and personal insults. As we as moderators gain experience with the paizo.com community we might recognize particular issues to be problematic to the point where we don't mind discussion of the issue in general, but we are leery of having that discussion on paizo.com where we've seen things repeatedly get out of hand.
That's kind of the point I was going for. It's more the attitude and expression than the opinion or experience itself. I think though that the others and I where kind of talking past each other on different topics though.
:)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently it has become clear to me that there really is no interest in a reasoned discussion on some certain "taboo" subjects. It's ok for those that support the "enlightened" opinion to call folks bigot or other objectionable names, but those of us that represent more traditional viewpoints have their posts deleted receive moderator thread warnings... It's censorship pure and simple and it is disgusting.
You allow very politically charged threads to exist but only so long as the "enlightened" agenda is promoted. If you really wanted to have an even handed approach, you would just remove the threads altogether.
I'll be waiting for this post to be deleted as well...
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aspasia, as someone with a very Conservative (or Right-wing or Traditional or Religious or what-have-you) view, if your posts are like the one you made above, it seems less like they're being deleted for being conservative and more like they're being because they come off as very rude.
Censorship in general isn't unexpected in a private forum such as this, but I've been relatively vocal about my views and have not received censorship. Of course, I try to phrase them politely, but that's what I try to do in general.
I mean, neither of us are so conservative that we outright reject a fantasy-themed game and attendant system filled with sorcerers, divination, witchcraft, and demons/devils/etc within it, whether or not we allow some of those themes within our home games (certainly your character being a conjurer is antithetical to most "Traditional" acceptances). That's not to question your Conservative nature - my point is simply that there's a built-in tolerance for variance from our own positions based purely on the fact that you and I play a fantasy game whose traditions are seated in a very demonized (in many Traditional circles) due to... well... the presence of demons, among other things.
I might suggest that it would behoove us to continue to vocalize our views, but to do so in such a way as to not engender anger or outright rejection. To this end, I would suggest that we work at making ourselves more palatable and less odious (something that David did when exiled from Israel and forced to live among the Phillistenes) - in other words, instead of seeking an eye for an eye, let's seek discourse in calm, measured methods.
More late-life Paul and less Saul.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. Then, of course, there are those whose hackles are raised at the concept of "Traditional" because they immediately presume everyone is a bigot. Alas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are ways to discuss things without being offensive -- and that goes for both/all sides. Regardless of your views, degrading others or being snide, derisive, and otherwise unpleasant is counterproductive to communication here or elsewhere and just makes it that much easier to have your posts removed.
And yes, there are posts on both/all sides that should have been removed. The mods are human and miss some. Hopefully if people can behave that won't be a problem in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are ways to discuss things without being offensive -- and that goes for both/all sides. Regardless of your views, degrading others or being snide, derisive, and otherwise unpleasant is counterproductive to communication here or elsewhere and just makes it that much easier to have your posts removed.
And yes, there are posts on both/all sides that should have been removed. The mods are human and miss some. Hopefully if people can behave that won't be a problem in the future.
There are ways to discuss most things without being offensive. Pretty much all the gaming discussion fall into this category.
There are things and views that really can't be discussed without being offensive, because the view itself degrades others. If someone thinks that homosexuals are perverts who should be kept away from decent people and especially children, there's no real way to discuss that without insulting them. I'm perfectly happy with that opinion being censored here.
Sure. But by the same token there are those that would like to see cheerleading from the other side censored as well. The problem we've been seeing is a lack of middle of the road discussion and more one side is BAD discussion. And it isn't coming from just one side here, but it appears (and perception is a lot here) that one side is getting more moderation than the other.
At times, yes. At times, no. There are elements on both sides that should be put in the corner and/or not allowed to post for a while in my opinion. I don't care which side you pick in the various battles, but being offensive because they did is just as bad. There are tons of places to have that sort of battle. Here ain't it.
It's be a shame that we'd have to remove all sorts of topics on these themes because people cannot control themselves.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are confusing "being entitled to voice an opinion" with "being a jerk while voicing an opinion." It happens on many threads, not just political or social ones. It happens a lot in caster vs martials or any class vs fighters, rogues, or monks.
I have seen those who support gay rights have their posts deleted as well. Not just because they quoted an inflammatory post but because they were inflammatory as well. There is no reason to post something inflammatory. You have plenty of time to read what you post before hitting "submit." You can even type up your responses in Word or something similar to make sure the post monster doesn't eat it up and you end up posting doubly frustrated. If your posts are in a constant state of being deleted, you should probably ask yourself why. Ask if it's the opinion or the way you phrased it.
I've had some posts deleted because I lost my cool. It doesn't happen often but it does. When it happens I know that it was because I chose the wrong words to state my opinion. I attacked the person rather than the idea. I was aggressive rather than assertive. I took things personally rather than as a difference of opinion. Self reflection has allowed me to be a better contributor to the community. I still have lots of differences of opinion and sometimes the conversations get heated but I know when I'm getting close to being a jerk and I back off.
Self moderation is better than being moderated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simpey -- an idiot's opinion that the world is flat isn't equally valid as an expert's researched position that the world is more of a roundish shape (approximating a sphere).
Everyone is allowed an opinion -- just because you have one doesn't mean that opinion is the equal to another.
It's one of the biggest fallacies out there, and goes by the name of false equivalency.
Wouldn't that be a fact?
That is to say one can prove and/or disprove that the earth is either flat or roundishly shaped. Would not this be the false equivalency?
Just thought I should reply to this:
You and I might agree so -- but as Ross pointed out some would disagree. It could come down to one of those "English language" things where "It's just a theory!" comes out of.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And sometimes one side is BAD.
Now, to be fair: if the topic under discussion is something along the lines of "I know this seems intuitively bad / is generally considered by society to be bad, but here's why it really is good", this is a good way to quash discussion. After all, a lot of the things that we take for granted were once considered bad, socially unacceptable, or at least, the sort of thing you don't discuss in polite company.
I agree that the Paizo boards are not necessarily the best place for controversial discussion (they're the best place for Pathfinder discussion) but just wanted to point out that sword's sharp on both sides.
(Plus I think having an "off topic" board is a necessary inconvenience, because otherwise all those things would get injected into discussion where they are not relevant or wanted, just because there is no better place to put them)
|
For the main topic at hand, I have had posts deleted, sometimes because of quoting a post that got deleted, sometimes for losing my cool. But I have never viewed the moderation as "out of control" or heavy handed.
Even if I did, it would not matter. These are private boards after all. Paizo has the right to dump any post they want for whatever reason (or no reason at all); none of us has a "right" to anything on the boards; we post because Paizo allows it. No more, no less. If you want to have more say in how a forum is moderated, start your own (and expect to end up getting the same kinds of criticism you are seeing here).
As to moderators taking part in discussions, these are not formal debates, they are open discussions. As such I can see no reason the moderators should not be able to take part in the discussions.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disclaimer: references to "you" in this post are general and do not refer to any real person, living or dead. This is not a response to any one person but to the gist of much of this conversation in general.
---
I'd say anyone here takes a risk in talking about and moreover judging people in terms of the demographic they belong to. The admins of this site are going to err on making sure all people feel welcome, and if someone states an opinion on a type of person that makes that type of person reading this board feel unwelcome or offended, then that opinion is going to be silenced. Yes, that in its own sense becomes an exclusive policy, but the policy as I see it is basically to exclude those who would exclude others.
Besides, if you're going to denigrate, judge, or otherwise condemn (even if subtly) someone for belonging to a certain demographic (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, religion), then in my opinion you have given up your right to complain about being judged yourself -- you get done unto you what you do to others. If you, whether explicitly or complicitly, advocate for the oppression of others, even if you think you're morally or ethically obligated to do so, you don't get to yell "help, help, I'm being oppressed" when people turn around what you want to do to other people back on you.
And if you really want to talk about that kind of stuff, there REALLY are better places for it than a website for a game company anyway.
There is not, or shouldn't be, a risk to talk about ideologies, political points of view, etc. as long as it doesn't get into judging individuals. For example, I think people can discuss the economic benefits and flaws of increasing the minimum wage, as long as it doesn't get into insulting rich people or poor people. Or discuss whether sodas containing high fructose corn syrup should be banned. Or discuss a movie that's out, or a book, or whatever. You could even talk about what a given religion, or political group, or other ideologically based organization believes--just so long as it stays away from judging what people of a given group described.
Now, can we utterly eliminate judgement and bias from the way we talk? No. But I think there are guidelines that can be drawn and we can do our best to respect our differences.
Me, I just wish there was more straight up kindness and empathy on this board. There is a lot of bitterness, a lot of bitterness in this thread and elsewhere, and we take it out on each other far, far too often--and take personally often that which isn't meant to be personal. That doesn't do us or Paizo any favors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And sometimes one side is BAD. The middle between two sides isn't always the right place to be. If one side is saying everyone should be treated well and the other is saying a particular (ethnic/racial/gender/orientation) group needs to be treated as lesser, then what side you pick is what matters. Not how politely you phrase it. Yes, those on the right side should avoid being offensive themselves. It's certainly possible to argue for a good thing in an offensive matter. It's not possible to argue that black people should be slaves or that Hitler had the right idea about the Jews without being offensive. (Choosing those extreme examples because hopefully we can all agree on them)
Perhaps I was unclear about what middle of the road means, at least to me. You spoke of picking sides above and that one side is bad. That, to me, is where the arguments start before there is any conversation.
In many of these conversations it becomes a fight between extremes, with an almost fanatic, frothing at the mouth take on what the other side is saying. It's like watching American politics on TV where each side isn't saying what the other side said, but the worst possible take on what they've said. That isn't conversation, that's tossing buzz words and talking points back and forth.
An example of a middle of the road take (in my opinion) on something might be "Hey, I understand you guys are looking for a lot of diversity in Golarion. Are we keeping that just in the Inner Sea fluff so that the baseline rule books are fairly setting neutral and not influenced by things that might upset some people?" That is a question that some people have. Whether people agree or not, there are some people that are uncomfortable with certain elements in their books and would be ill at ease if they were there. They ask so they know what to avoid. From what I recall back in the day, that was a big deal with some of the World Of Darkness stuff -- it was full of blood and monsters and pictures of naughty things that made some people sad. And that's their prerogative.
The problem is when a simple question like the above is turned into a riot by each side trying to say that the OP is either Against or For This Bad Thing. And they aren't (or maybe they are, who knows -- but they are asking in at least a mannered way without trying to say something is good or bad.)
This isn't football or a war. We don't need to pick sides to have a discussion or accuse the other person of being BAD because their views don't line up. I don't need a "right" place to be. And even if their views are so off the wall horrible that you disagree vehemently, it's a very good chance that the post won't last. And that's where we get problems, because people fall all over themselves to cry out bigot and pervert and how THEIR side is destroying the fabric of society. That isn't what these boards were supposed to be about.
My final thought that "bad" is in the eye of the beholder. There are views that people hold that others believe are bad or sins or wrong. You can certainly disagree with them -- Gods know I do. But everyone is entitled to have a view or opinion. It's how you express them and discuss them that matters and how the mods have to react. If you cannot say something nice or constructive or whatever, find a new thread till you chill. You do neither side any good by going off.
Editted: And Death Quaker said it better than I did.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ DQ
While I agree, the truth of the matter is that there are those that are so closed minded that they honestly view their own particular view as right, by it's own definition, and anything that challenges, argues, or debunks it automatically puts those people into a dehumanizing category, generally either as a bigot or as having a view that they are not treating others as real people.
There are also plenty of examples of double standards. I remember a few threads that where designed to be for advice for religious players and playing games that where notably civil, and a few posters went in there with the express purpose (and admittedly so) of insulting others and getting the thread locked because they had a personal beef with the subject. And they did so very quickly. And it's worth noting that this was directly related to gaming. At the same time, there are other threads that pop up, sexism, race, and political, generally not related to the game or gaming at all except when someone wants to shush others that disagree.
So I agree, but at the same time, the reality of things shows that there is pretty clear favoritism to some groups over others. (in the sense that some groups are okay to abuse while others are not, that it's okay to troll, flame, and/or instigate against some, but not others). There are posters that brag about how they are basically immune to moderation, or that will spam flag posts, or that will go in and insult others and troll, just to get some threads locked. The fact that these things appear to happen, noticeably enough that it comes up, and that they continue to happen sends a certain picture. And of the two, I think it would be better to just outright forbid discussions about real world sex, race, gender, religion, or politics, (which I'm not advocating). Favoring one side in an argument or discussion, aside from a level of (at least perceived) hypocrisy, also only serves to stifle learning and growth on any side, and puts others on the defensive. It encourages people (on both sides, or neither) to become offended, because they know that that draws attention and the axe, allows for "justified" name-calling and categorizing of individuals, and it basically makes the conversation go nowhere.
|
|
@ DQ
While I agree, the truth of the matter is that there are those that are so closed minded that they honestly view their own particular view as right, by it's own definition, and anything that challenges, argues, or debunks it automatically puts those people into a dehumanizing category, generally either as a bigot or as having a view that they are not treating others as real people.
There are also plenty of examples of double standards. I remember a few threads that where designed to be for advice for religious players and playing games that where notably civil, and a few posters went in there with the express purpose (and admittedly so) of insulting others and getting the thread locked because they had a personal beef with the subject. And they did so very quickly. And it's worth noting that this was directly related to gaming. At the same time, there are other threads that pop up, sexism, race, and political, generally not related to the game or gaming at all except when someone wants to shush others that disagree.
So I agree, but at the same time, the reality of things shows that there is pretty clear favoritism to some groups over others. There are posters that brag about how they are basically immune to moderation, or that will spam flag posts, or that will go in and insult others and troll, just to get some threads locked. The fact that these things appear to happen, noticeably enough that it comes up, and that they continue to happen sends a certain picture. And of the two, I think it would be better to just outright forbid discussions about real world sex, race, gender, religion, or politics, (which I'm not advocating). Favoring one side in an argument or discussion, aside from a level of (at least perceived) hypocrisy, also only serves to stifle learning and growth on any side, and puts others on the defensive.
^This. Well said and echoes my sentiment exactly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And of the two, I think it would be better to just outright forbid discussions about real world sex, race, gender, religion, or politics,
I would love to back this. That's generally how it's handled on every other forum I've ever visited for any appreciable amount of time, and it's always been for the best.
I know it'll never happen here, but I can dream. In the meantime the Hide button will have to do.
Let's go ahead and not have that discussion here and now, but in a nice off-topic discussion somewhere else.
EDIT: I was listening to someone say "out" as I wanted to type "else".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And of the two, I think it would be better to just outright forbid discussions about real world sex, race, gender, religion, or politics,
I could back this if the axe swung both ways, meaning no discussion of opposite-sex relationships or how male-white-hetero-Xtian guys "lack institutionalized privilege(s)" or any imposition/assumption of religious-based morality/traditions as the baseline or... :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could back this if the axe swung both ways...
Why would you think Beckett meant otherwise? He said 'about...sex, race, gender, religion' etc. without qualifiers.
We would just all put on our clown masks and talk about how happy we are with the game and life and honk our funny horns.
Much like FAWTL does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could back this if the axe swung both ways...Why would you think Beckett meant otherwise? He said 'about...sex, race, gender, religion' etc. without qualifiers.
I only mean exactly what I said. That means no talk about marriage or a spouse or that you are expecting a baby or how the kids are doing. That means no mention of religion at all, including seemingly innocuous stuff like thinking the Pope or Dalai Lama seems like a decent guy, or how a niece/nephew is getting baptized/confirmed/mitzvahed. That means no politics of any kind, not even agreeing Putin is a d*ck or grousing about politicians/government/stupid or unjust laws.
I can't make assumptions to Beckett's meaning or intent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, most of the gaming stuff can be discussed without offense. It's generally when the discussion starts veering into real-world issues that it gets hard to find a good middle of the road.
I am not saying that one side is always right and the other BAD, just that there are cases when that's true. Which is why I deliberately picked extreme and non-controversial examples - ones which were controversial back in their day. I don't see a real difference between prejudice against blacks or Jews and prejudice against homosexuals or trans-people. (I assume that's what you're dancing around with "traditional" and "uncomfortable with certain elements". If you're talking about the pie fights about science fiction in fantasy gaming or something, then it falls back in the non-real world issues category. It's not inherently offensive)
I'm perfectly comfortable with moderators removing posts defending prejudice and discrimination, even if phrased politely, while not removing posts from the other side. I don't think we need a balanced discussion between prejudice and tolerance.
But then we aren't having a discussion; we're having a pep rally and/or mutual admiration society meeting. Which can be a fun thing too, but it isn't a discussion.
I guess I'm close-minded. I honestly do view my particular views on sexism, racism and homophobia as right. I do think racists, sexists and homophobes are bigots. (Isn't that pretty much by definition?)
I think arguments supporting racism, sexism or homophobia do show the views of those making such arguments.
And that may be true. Heck, it probably is true. But, and this a big butt here, if Paizo wants to say that this is where we come down and we do not tolerate any language about X topic here at all, then it needs to clearly say that. Otherwise letting people voice an opinion -- not hate speech, not slurs, not derogatory commentary -- contrary to the party line and then slapping them down is sort of a crappy thing to do (and to be clear, I am NOT saying that they are doing that.)
This site and this hobby attract a lot of people and not all of them share the same religious, political, or whatever views. From what I can tell, the forums have been good about letting people of whatever ilk talk for the most part. My concern is that when you start out with "That side is full of bigots" then you don't really have a conversation anymore, just a fight waiting for the mods to have to clean up. If we're truly going to allow people to communicate here on these ideas (however limited) then it should make allowances for all sides to express views, not just whichever group can scream down the other.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...My concern is that when you start out with "That side is full of bigots" then you don't really have a conversation anymore, just a fight waiting for the mods to have to clean up. If we're truly going to allow people to communicate here on these ideas (however limited) then it should make allowances for all sides to express views, not just whichever group can scream down the other.
I can see that side. I take the view that certain core aspects of myself and other posters are not controversial and not open for discussion: our sexual-preferences, our gender identities/presentations, our non-Xtian or atheist beliefs, etc. But there are some posters here who vocally and repeatedly take the view that these key aspects are somehow controversial or harmful, and that almost any inclusiveness of such aspects in characters is somehow unacceptable and damaging. A true conversation or debate can't happen if both sides don't start off acknowledging the other's basic humanity and rights.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...My concern is that when you start out with "That side is full of bigots" then you don't really have a conversation anymore, just a fight waiting for the mods to have to clean up. If we're truly going to allow people to communicate here on these ideas (however limited) then it should make allowances for all sides to express views, not just whichever group can scream down the other.I can see that side. I take the view that certain core aspects of myself and other posters are not controversial and not open for discussion: our sexual-preferences, our gender identities/presentations, our non-Xtian or atheist beliefs, etc. But there are some posters here who vocally and repeatedly take the view that these key aspects are somehow controversial or harmful, and that almost any inclusiveness of such aspects in characters is somehow unacceptable and damaging.
And I agree they should be shut down. But I also believe that the people who are vocal about how much the blank colour blank race blank sexual identity have held them down and/or are horrible should be shut down too. Equality and harmony for everyone, you know? Bob on the boards isn't responsible for anything more than what he says -- he did not cause your personal situation (you in the broader sense, of course, and maybe Bob did in the most extreme case like if he knew you.)
I guess I just think that everyone should get a safe place to talk or no one should.
Edit: Gah, you editted while I was typing!
A true conversation or debate can't happen if both sides don't start off acknowledging the other's basic humanity and rights.
Extremely true.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"that they honestly view their own particular view as right, by it's own definition, and anything that challenges, argues, or debunks it automatically puts those people into a dehumanizing category, generally either as a bigot or as having a view that they are not treating others as real people."
I guess I'm close-minded. I honestly do view my particular views on sexism, racism and homophobia as right. I do think racists, sexists and homophobes are bigots. (Isn't that pretty much by definition?)
I think arguments supporting racism, sexism or homophobia do show the views of those making such arguments.
Please note that you seemed to have ignored the clarifying portion of the statement. And I am not talking about you specifically, but in general. There is nothing wrong at all with holding one's views as right, and that certainly does not (in itself) make one close-minded. The close-mindedness comes in when that person uses that and the tactic of categorizing others that do not share each and every view you have to be monstrous or villainous. If you can remove the humanity from the opposition, and place them wholesale into a category (bigot, racist, sexist, etc. . .), then they must also just be haters, and have an ulterior motive, further dehumanizing and categorizing them.
The truly sad thing is that most of the time, those two sides fully agree on the finally result, and only differ on the particular points or premises involved. For example, I also believe that racists, sexists, and homophobes are bigots. Just not with how easily or how quickly some people are to lump others into those categories, or their definitions of those are. It's the "arguments supporting racism, sexism, and homophobia" that is the issue. Anyone that is disagreeing with you (again general, not specific you) must therefore be supporting bigotry. And the quicker that is thrown out at one side, the quicker the other not only doesn't need to argue or prove theirs, but they can basically put any discussion on hold while the topic spirals onto other topics. Its unacceptable in debate, and is basically the equivalent of seeing your about to loose and throwing the chess board off the table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I take the view that certain core aspects of myself and other posters are not controversial and not open for discussion: our sexual-preferences, our gender identities/presentations, our non-Xtian or atheist beliefs, etc.
Wherein lies the problem. Those are core aspects to you (again general, not specifically you), but not to everyone. And I do not mean this to insult or belittle you, but this implies that only those things are off-limits, but those things that other people hold as core aspects of them, yah, not so much. The idea being that because these are important to me, no one else can be against them, but that somehow does not work both ways.
Made even worse when these real world things are also planted into the game/setting like the issues of atheism or slavery. They are not the same as the real world versions.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I agree they should be shut down. But I also believe that the people who are vocal about how much the blank colour blank race blank sexual identity have held them down and/or are horrible should be shut down too. Equality and harmony for everyone, you know? Bob on the boards isn't responsible for anything more than what he says -- he did not cause your personal situation (you in the broader sense, of course, and maybe Bob did in the most extreme case like if he knew you.)
I guess I just think that everyone should get a safe place to talk or no one should.
To bring up a specific example, Jessica Price of Paizo has discussed with much clarity and excessive patience the numerous ways in which sexism has been and still remains a problem within the computer gaming industry and beyond. Yet despite her attempts to point out the institutionalized problems and not cast blame on specific individuals, she has met with vociferous and repeated posters who seek to dismiss and undermine her very valid points, or derail the discussion into how "white/straight/Xtian males have it just as bad or worse." Not only do they attempt to shut down the discussion, they then bemoan how unfair it is their comments and difficulties aren't being discussed. This happens every time it comes up.
"Equality and harmony for everyone" in discussions doesn't do a darn to address legitimate issues and grievances that an unaffected majority refuse to consider and discuss.
I take the view that certain core aspects of myself and other posters are not controversial and not open for discussion: our sexual-preferences, our gender identities/presentations, our non-Xtian or atheist beliefs, etc.Wherein lies the problem. Those are core aspects to you (again general, not specifically you), but not to everyone. And I do not mean this to insult or belittle you, but this implies that only those things are off-limits, but those things that other people hold as core aspects of them, yah, not so much. The idea being that because these are important to me, no one else can be against them, but that somehow does not work both ways.
Made even worse when these real world things are also planted into the game/setting like the issues of atheism or slavery. They are not the same as the real world versions.
Exposure to consensual sexual-preferences, gender identities/presentations, non-Xtian or atheist beliefs, etc. do no real or lasting harm to readers/customers that do not agree with them, anymore than in-game topics such as fiends, non-monotheistic Xtian deities, or careers of killing monsters. But unlike the later, exposure to the former and their non-harmful natures can dispel ignorance & otherism, eventually leading to greater tolerance & understanding amongst everyone. I see this as an uncontroversial positive, and remain puzzled why others do not.
And I agree they should be shut down. But I also believe that the people who are vocal about how much the blank colour blank race blank sexual identity have held them down and/or are horrible should be shut down too. Equality and harmony for everyone, you know? Bob on the boards isn't responsible for anything more than what he says -- he did not cause your personal situation (you in the broader sense, of course, and maybe Bob did in the most extreme case like if he knew you.)
I guess I just think that everyone should get a safe place to talk or no one should.
To bring up a specific example, Jessica Price of Paizo has discussed with much clarity and excessive patience the numerous ways in which sexism has been and still remains a problem within the computer gaming industry and beyond. Yet despite her attempts to point out the institutionalized problems and not cast blame on specific individuals, she has met with vociferous and repeated posters who seek to dismiss and undermine her very valid points, or derail the discussion into how "white/straight/Xtian males have it just as bad or worse." Not only do they attempt to shut down the discussion, they then bemoan how unfair it is their comments and difficulties aren't being discussed. This happens every time it comes up.
"Equality and harmony for everyone" in discussions doesn't do a darn to address legitimate issues and grievances that an unaffected majority refuse to consider and discuss.
I'm not sure it's a derail to say "Hey, I'm a white guy and no one handed me the world a platter despite what you might hear." Perhaps they are trying to relate by expressing their own problems or frustrations. Or maybe they are just bad at communicating.
Your comments regarding how these peoples comments/difficulties basically don't matter and shouldn't be discussed is part of the troubling cycle I see going on. Should the white/straight/Christian/whatever people start their own exact thread so as not to derail whomever's conversation -- resulting in a dozen identical threads -- or comment where the discussion is going on, or just not talk?
This is a real question; too often it is seen as shutting down the discussion to be not QUITBAG and speak. I dealt with that in college at a predominately female school -- gender studies classes were fun when the professor and 90 percent of the class told you to shut up because you dared to be born with the wrong plumbing.
In any case, we're veering heaving into the realm of 'your side doesn't understand my side' which doesn't really make for a good conversation.
|
|
To bring up a specific example, Jessica Price of Paizo has discussed with much clarity and excessive patience the numerous ways in which sexism has been and still remains a problem within the computer gaming industry and beyond. Yet despite her attempts to point out the institutionalized problems and not cast blame on specific individuals, she has met with vociferous and repeated posters who seek to dismiss and undermine her very valid points, or derail the discussion into how "white/straight/Xtian males have it just as bad or worse." Not only do they attempt to shut down the discussion, they then bemoan how unfair it is their comments and difficulties aren't being discussed. This happens every time it comes up.
Lets be fair now. (I do not want to point fingers, here), but every single time I've seen it happen, it's generally that someone tries to pull the already established conversation into that single direction and off topic, then shuts down the discussion when it doesn't keep deviated.
"Equality and harmony for everyone" in discussions doesn't do a darn to address legitimate issues and grievances that an unaffected majority refuse to consider and discuss.
And again, people assume that their legitimate issues are the only legitimate ones, or even the most legitimate. This is the at least the second time for example that you have singled out the whites/straights/Christians/males?
I'm not sure it's a derail to say "Hey, I'm a white guy and no one handed me the world a platter despite what you might hear." Perhaps they are trying to relate by expressing their own problems or frustrations. Or maybe they are just bad at communicating.
Your comments regarding how these peoples comments/difficulties basically don't matter and shouldn't be discussed is part of the troubling cycle I see going on. Should the white/straight/Christian/whatever people start their own exact thread so as not to derail whomever's conversation -- resulting in a dozen identical threads -- or comment where the discussion is going on, or just not talk?
If there is an ongoing thread discussing voter suppression of ethnic minorities and the poor, would it be acceptable for white middle-class posters to attempt to dismiss the points raised, or derail the thread in favor of discussing their own difficulties (real, Devil's advocate, or otherwise)? If Christians are discussing inter-faith cooperation or perceived needed reforms, is it ok for atheists (real, Devil's advocate, or otherwise) to attempt to turn the thread into "Xtians are oppressors"? I'd suggest no, they can go start their own threads, even if that leads to a proliferation of them.
This is a real question; too often it is seen as shutting down the discussion to be not QUITBAG and speak. I dealt with that in college at a predominately female school -- gender studies classes were fun when the professor and 90 percent of the class told you to shut up because you dared to be born with the wrong plumbing.
I honestly don't have a problem with discussion of the disagreement of QUILTBAG inclusion in Paizo products, so long as it remains respectful and posters make a good-faith effort at discussion (and that includes not rehashing the same old uninformed or ignorant rhetoric that has been repeatedly and soundly dispelled). I would very much have a problem with something similar happening in the "LGBT Community" discussion thread, because it would be impossible for opposed posters to make their opposition to non-hetero sexualities or non-CIS gender identification known without it immediately becoming personal and insulting to the LGBT/QUILTBAG posters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Equality and harmony for everyone" in discussions doesn't do a darn to address legitimate issues and grievances that an unaffected majority refuse to consider and discuss.And again, people assume that their legitimate issues are the only legitimate ones, or even the most legitimate. This is the at least the second time for example that you have singled out the whites/straights/Christians/males?
If you, as a presumable white/straight/Xtian male wish to discuss how anti-male or anti-straight or anti-Xtian or anti-male bias happens, is harmful, and how to work to remedy it, please do so. I swear on my stack of Calvin and Hobbes compilations not to hijack or demean or dismiss your valid concerns. If in reading, I have a question requiring illumination, I'll make my best attempt to ask it in a respectful tone. But if the thread is already established from post one as about how the topic addresses issues directly affecting a minority or disempowered group, then please start a different thread rather than co-opt the thread for the majority voices or institutionalized power structure. I'm not saying your issues aren't legitimate, I'm just suggesting it take place in a different thread... sometimes separate conversations are the only way to discuss the situation respectfully without stepping on others.
I "single out whites/straights/Christians/males" because they are likely the majority in any given thread. Anytime the majority speaks en masse, the minority and disempowered are often drowned out by the volume. That isn't meant as a judgment, just the current mathof precentages.