| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you accept the laughably unaware position that these are topics that can be debated in a healthy way in an academic context, these forums aren't academia. Entirely different context.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if we just tried banning all the bigots and their apologists BEFORE we nuke the forums. Worth a shot, at least, since these people want the forums gone entirely.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
This last page is EXACTLY the proof of concept that shows the point OP was making.
There is no saving this forum, it needs to die.
Why do you favor deleting the forums instead of just banning the bigoted posters that repeatedly cause these issues? It's a very simple solution that doesn't destroy an entire community. We literally have the usernames of the people causing repeated problems and necessitating that we defend ourselves, it's not like they're some mysterious force that magically causes arguments.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prismatic, I will make the (now admittedly charitable) assumption that you are not acting in bad faith.
Debate is all well and good. However, there are 2 factors you may be misunderstanding.
1) “Debate” implies 2 opinions. “Are trans people valid” is not a pair of opinions. It is a factual argument. Trans people exist and are valid. Period. That is as factually accurate as 2 + 2 = 4. You wouldn’t debate someone trying to claim 2 + 2 = kumquat.
2) There exists a thing called the “paradox of tolerance.” This asserts that by being tolerant of intolerant viewpoints, you are providing the intolerant the one thing they need to “win,” which is a platform. As others have already explained, with what is in my opinion Herculean restraint, is that a transphobe being given the opportunity to voice their opinion on its own is an admission of the validity of their viewpoint. If a platform allows them, then it provides the illusion that a debate exists, and that there are positions one can take. But it isn’t a debate. So giving the transphobe a platform is always going to be harmful, and to argue otherwise is at best naive or at worst an argument of bad faith.
The reason you are experiencing pushback here is both because as other posters have said, this is a point that has already been raised tiringly often. But also, because the whole “let’s debate things” is a couched dogwhistle that is used so frequently that it’s almost cliche. “I’m not a bigot. I just have some concerns and I’d like to debate you about them.” That’s usually the moral appeal made by people who want to get on a platform. To get eyes on that opinion. And the moment they do, they have already allowed harmful rhetoric to propagate.
Normally this is only an argument one can ale after the fact. I.e. it’s a bold call to suggest that all rhetoric of this sort should be treated as suspicion. However, as I said, by now someone calling for the chance to “debate” the “trans issue” is a huge red flag, since it’s the same call to reasonableness that bigots use to make their ideas seem palatable. If you weren’t aware of that before, you are now. If you were aware of that before but spend time to type this out anyway, I’m sorry, but I am understanding of the vitriol you are receiving. Using the tools of bigots unironically, especially after you’ve been told repeatedly that this is what you are doing and when you cannot claim ignorance, will cause people to see you as a bigot. That shouldn’t come as a shock.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if we just tried banning all the bigots and their apologists BEFORE we nuke the forums. Worth a shot, at least, since these people want the forums gone entirely.Do people regularly say that "Trans men aren't men" or "Trans women aren't women" or "Trans people are sub-human" on this forum?
Unfortunately, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not only will they go elsewhere, but they'll also adjourn to bars, parties, and other locations as they high-five each other for taking down a 'woke' organization's community.
I wish.... It means I wouldn't have to deal with them as a Venture Agent.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You literally replied to my post saying that my humanity being up for debate is not the sign of impartial moderation with a "Everything is debatable opinion." Again, if you are making a devil's advocate argument, you're doing the work of that side of the argument for them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This last page is EXACTLY the proof of concept that shows the point OP was making.
There is no saving this forum, it needs to die.
No, it doesn't.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
You only appears in a discussion to insist "all things can be debated" only in relation to one topic.
I have seen no attempt by you to inject, in any other existing conversation, that all things can be debated. Yet, here, you are insistent. When challenged, you reiterated: "I made the uncontroversial statement that literally anything can, in principle, be debated." to a post which had as point #1 that actually, that isn't a meaningful position even academically, and in this case, the only place you feel that your insistence is VITAL is a conversation where that position is clearly aligned with a front for doing harm.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not allowing bigots to bigot is not ass kissing. If people wanna bigot and be safe in their bigotry go to Parler.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well…I tried. I literally said as clearly as I could that your words will be perceived as such, and made no inference to your motive. Also, as I indicated, “anything should be up for debate” *is*, historically and demonstrably, a controversial and problematic statement.