OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES

Posts

author=Sated
Like I've already said on multiple occasions, "there is a big difference between being allowed to speak your mind, and people actually respecting or caring about what you have to say", so I completely agree with you when you say that people aren't entitled to have anyone engage with them; but that's very different to stopping people from speaking their mind!


you are literally contradicting yourself here

author=Sated
ElectricalKat is trying to say that such opinions shouldn't even be allowed to be voiced, which I think is abhorrent in the extreme. I find the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind far more offensive than people saying that they think homosexuality is a sin (and I find both awful before anyone think that I don't), because without free speech we wouldn't have a society were people are even open to discuss their sexuality and find out more about themselves cf. Russia were you literally can't even speak about homosexuality to minors because it's illegal.




author=Sated
Freedom of speech is really fucking important if you want a progressive society. It's what a progressive society is built on. If you let people with abhorrent viewpoints speak their mind then you can engage and educate them; if you ban the speaking their minds then their opinion will go untested and their attitudes won't change.


User was warned for this post
author=Sated
ElectricalKat is trying to say that such opinions shouldn't even be allowed to be voiced, which I think is abhorrent in the extreme. I find the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind far more offensive than people saying that they think homosexuality is a sin (and I find both awful before anyone think that I don't), because without free speech we wouldn't have a society were people are even open to discuss their sexuality and find out more about themselves cf. Russia were you literally can't even speak about homosexuality to minors because it's illegal.
Which is something that, to some degree, i agree with. That is, in a place where there are no efficient rules of engagement that are able to balance the forces, bigotry shouldn't have a place at all. Though, as somewhat of a community organizer myself, i feel we can go in a different way.

author=Sated
Freedom of speech is really fucking important if you want a progressive society. It's what a progressive society is built on. If you let people with abhorrent viewpoints speak their mind then you can engage and educate them; if you ban the speaking their minds then their opinion will go untested and their attitudes won't change.
'k, i'm not that into liberal politics to believe that free speech is the panacea for our societies. But i feel that might a bit of a contentious point, so i won't pursue it further. I will, however, make clear that without very clear rules of engagement, and amazing mediation, this perspective can't be done. And, currently, i feel we might lack both.

Also, Kat, i'm loving the cats, but would you please hold them back a bit? I have a feeling we might be reaching somewhere :D
author=WetMattos
Also, Kat, i'm loving the cats, but would you please hold them back a bit? I have a feeling we might be reaching somewhere :D


That's fine. I won't be coming back anyway. I wanted to reply to Liberty because another administrator PMed me giving me confidence, but seeing that equal weight is apparently being given here and I just heard "both sides are just as bad" from an admin I think I'm done now.

I have better things to do than beat a dying horse. The kittens were because I grew tired of responding to people who were just ignoring what I was typing anyway.
author=ElectricalKat
author=WetMattos
Also, Kat, i'm loving the cats, but would you please hold them back a bit? I have a feeling we might be reaching somewhere :D
That's fine. I won't be coming back anyway. I wanted to reply to Liberty because another administrator PMed me giving me confidence, but seeing that equal weight is apparently being given here and I just heard "both sides are just as bad" from an admin I think I'm done now.

I have better things to do than beat a dying horse. The kittens were because I grew tired of responding to people who were just ignoring what I was typing anyway.
Soli, right? Well, admins are, as far as i can parse, a mixed bag, but you know me, i'm a hopeless hoper :P

May you be well in your parting, and 'till next time?

author=Sated
Like I've already said on multiple occasions, "there is a big difference between being allowed to speak your mind, and people actually respecting or caring about what you have to say", so I completely agree with you when you say that people aren't entitled to have anyone engage with them; but that's very different to stopping people from speaking their mind!
you are literally contradicting yourself here
I'm not even remotely contradicting myself. If you're too dumb to understand the difference between "letting someone speak their mind" and "feeling obligated to respond to them" then that's not my fault.
Hm,there might be a mistake in your interpretation here, Sated. What i think Kat is alluding to is that, for people who are personally involved with an issue, there is no choice of not caring or engaging with harmful things. As the text i linked to before wisefully said,
although we have some choice in how we respond to or express our emotions, we do not have control over which ones we experience at any given time and to what degree.
The article in question is specifically mentioning how the rule of 'not making it personal' is actually counter productive to mindful discussions about social justice, so i think the quote stands well. Which in turn makes the responsability of the sayer to care for their peers, specially if there's any desire of making a conversation about social justice work.
In this context, your approach is contradictory, because it relies on a very different idea than the one i had when i made my point. Does it make sense?
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
Okay, couple of things.

I don't think homophobic viewpoints should be allowed under the nebulous aegis of 'freedom of speech' or 'religious liberty' or anything like that. Holding that homosexuality is abhorrent or shouldn't be allowed is a pretty rotten viewpoint to hold when we have a lot of gay and LGBT friends on this forum that have to read it and then hear everyone say 'he must be allowed to share this view." No! If someone said "well if you ask me black people are trouble makers and should go back to Africa," you probably wouldn't fall over yourself saying we need to respect his views. The fact that religion becomes a free pass to hate people and have people say we need to respect that view is one of the major reasons I broke with religion. Just because someone is polite about it doesn't mean their essential message isn't still 'I hate gay people, for essentially no reason.'

Freedom of speech is a good thing but it is very often trotted out as the first line of defense for bigots and trolls to say whatever they like because they feel they have a constitutional right to express their vile viewpoints and everyone else has to deal with it. This is wrong, because first of all that isn't even what freedom of speech means, and second, this website has rules against expressing bigoted or hateful viewpoints. The staff has the jurisdiction to decide what content should and shouldn't be allowed.

Sated, stop calling people stupid, Jesus. And Kat, please stop posting those images.
Except he wasn't saying he hated gay people at all. Nor was he disparaging towards gay people at all. That's what I'm annoyed at - that the fact someone who shared their viewpoint got shat on despite being polite about it and not being an ass. Just because it wasn't 'the right' opinion. He wasn't doing it to throw hate and he wasn't acting as though he should be excused because of it or that he was essentially right because of it. Religion or not. He was just stating 'this is what I believe and why, but hey, I'm not hating you or acting like an asshole about it, nor am I better.'

And Kat, when I said I'm flexi-sexual, that means I'm bi-sexual. As in part of LGBT. So, your insinuation that I'm somehow against it? Very, very wrong. I'm just capable of seeing both sides of things and not flying into a complete rage over someone sharing their thoughts on things. Maybe because I've come from a very religious background and understand that a lot of people misunderstand what the Bible says, or that a lot of the younger generation will listen when given a chance. But jumping on them and inciting like you did - and you have been doing so - is part of the problem.

Don't take that to mean I hate you or that I'm transphobic in any way. I've friends and people I know who are trans and I support them 100%, but acting like an ass? Everyone is capable of that - it's a human trait, not restricted to any gender.
author=Sated
I'm not saying that people's horrible viewpoints deserve to be respected. There's a massive difference between letting someone talk shit and respecting the shit that they spew. It should be abundantly obvious that I don't have any respect whatsoever for opinions born from religion; that doesn't mean I want people who have those views to stop posting.

Which kinda misses my point, then. Though the notion of respect is somewhat muddy, and up to debate, we need to understand that most awful positions come from places of disrespect of someone else's humanity - ergo why we insist on the seemingly hyperbolic "people who don't think we deserve to exist".

Giving these positions platform without very good tools of mediation and means of comeback implies in, to some degree, supporting them by virtue of allowing them to be put as valid. In the absense of amazingly well done moderation, not allowing them at all is perceived as a better option, and it tends to be on the principle that it allows for other, usually marginalized opinions, to be brought to light.

Again, i argue that mayhap "safe space" isn't the best choice for a forum that intends to confront such questions, but in the absence of a very good groundwork, that might be for the best.

author=Liberty
Except he wasn't saying he hated gay people at all. Nor was he disparaging towards gay people at all. That's what I'm annoyed at - that the fact someone who shared their viewpoint got shat on despite being polite about it and not being an ass. Just because it wasn't 'the right' opinion. He wasn't doing it to throw hate and he wasn't acting as though he should be excused because of it or that he was essentially right because of it. Religion or not. He was just stating 'this is what I believe and why, but hey, I'm not hating you or acting like an asshole about it, nor am I better.'

Again, you're conflating 'acting like an ass' to 'being violent'. That will, in all situations, make you misunderstand the point being made. Violence is not restricted to a way of saying things. Violence exists within viewpoints, at the level of the discourse. Solitayre did lampshadow it earlier, people are being technically not asses - by being polite - while still being allowed to maintain bigoted positions and to spew them without challenge.

In the absence of mediation who understands this kind of nuance and subtlety, i still advocate for the silencing. Else we'll get amazingly unbalanced conversations - since it's always easier for the unnaffected to be detached from their views - where polite bigoted people will go on about their 'opinions' and marginalized folks will be understood as hypersensitive and unkind.
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
author=Liberty
Except he wasn't saying he hated gay people at all. Nor was he disparaging towards gay people at all. That's what I'm annoyed at - that the fact someone who shared their viewpoint got shat on despite being polite about it and not being an ass. Just because it wasn't 'the right' opinion. He wasn't doing it to throw hate and he wasn't acting as though he should be excused because of it or that he was essentially right because of it. Religion or not. He was just stating 'this is what I believe and why, but hey, I'm not hating you or acting like an asshole about it, nor am I better.'


It's still saying "I don't think gay people or their rights should be respected or recognized.' Dressing up an ugly viewpoint in non-aggressive language doesn't make it okay. I realize a lot of people are essentially raised to think this way from the time they're born and they'd have a hard time letting go of those beliefs, but it doesn't make those beliefs okay, or not toxic, or abhorrent.

Also, my belief is that any opposition to homosexuality under the banner of Christian religious belief is completely wrong-headed and should be expunged. It's very strange to me that anyone could read the New Testament about Christ loving and accepting everyone (except those who co-opt God's name to do evil!) and decide that an inextricable part of his message was 'we need to do something about all these gay people."
Yellow Magic
Could I BE any more Chandler Bing from Friends (TM)?
3154
author=Solitayre
It's still saying "I don't think gay people or their rights should be respected or recognized.' Dressing up an ugly viewpoint in non-aggressive language doesn't make it okay. I realize a lot of people are essentially raised to think this way from the time they're born and they'd have a hard time letting go of those beliefs, but it doesn't make those beliefs okay, or not toxic, or abhorrent.
With all due respect, whether you believe it's okay or not shouldn't be a factor in your moderation/admin duties, because on the other hand, the ones whose beliefs you're calling toxic and abhorrent probably find the very idea of homosexuality toxic and abhorrent. This doesn't mean that they should be, in essence, protected from opposing views, does it? All goes back to what Liberty and FG have been saying, really.

*posts Voltaire quote*

*gets shot*
author=Yellow Magic
author=Solitayre
It's still saying "I don't think gay people or their rights should be respected or recognized.' Dressing up an ugly viewpoint in non-aggressive language doesn't make it okay. I realize a lot of people are essentially raised to think this way from the time they're born and they'd have a hard time letting go of those beliefs, but it doesn't make those beliefs okay, or not toxic, or abhorrent.
With all due respect, whether you believe it's okay or not shouldn't be a factor in your moderation/admin duties, because on the other hand, the ones whose beliefs you're calling toxic and abhorrent probably find the very idea of homosexuality toxic and abhorrent. This doesn't mean that they should be, in essence, protected from opposing views, does it? All goes back to what Liberty and FG have been saying, really.

*posts Voltaire quote*

*gets shot*


That, or both me and Solitayre are pointing out that the Liberal approach to this conundrum probably won't do us any good, for it does not aim to correct preexisting power imbalances in favour of the stigmatized - which is a central point in most Social Justice thinking - and that we might have to take sides if Social Justice is what we want to debate.
You can put it any way you want, but what I read is that you want your opinions and your right to talk about whatever you want to be favored over others, and that people with a differing opinion should be silenced.
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
author=SnowOwl
You can put it any way you want, but what I read is that you want your opinions and your right to talk about whatever you want to be favored over others, and that people with a differing opinion should be silenced.

They're differing opinions, but one is actively harmful and disrespectful, even if it's presented as politely as possible.

That said... I don't think we should just ban everyone who disagrees, because I think a peaceful discourse is the best way for people to learn why their ideas are harmful. There's a huge difference in potential between someone who is stubborn and someone who is just naive.

But I don't believe we need to keep space for people who aggressively and close-mindedly fight for harmful ideals - homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny - because we gain nothing from it. They drive other people out of the community by treating them with disrespect.

We don't treat a nine-year-old's opinion on art as equal to the advice of someone who's painted for twenty years. We don't take career suggestions from someone who was just fired for sleeping in the back room. Please don't believe that all opinions should be treated with equal amounts of validity.
author=SnowOwl
You can put it any way you want, but what I read is that you want your opinions and your right to talk about whatever you want to be favored over others, and that people with a differing opinion should be silenced.

That's a way to put it, and honestly here i won't be arguing with you. If, in your perspective, all positions have equal weight and important in all matters, well, who am i to disagree? You have already convinced yourself of what my point is, so there is very little for me to add.

author=slash
They're differing opinions, but one is actively harmful and disrespectful, even if it's presented as politely as possible.

That said... I don't think we should just ban everyone who disagrees, because I think a peaceful discourse is the best way for people to learn why their ideas are harmful. There's a huge difference in potential between someone who is stubborn and someone who is just naive.

But I don't believe we need to keep space for people who aggressively and close-mindedly fight for harmful ideals - homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny - because we gain nothing from it. They drive other people out of the community by treating them with disrespect.

We don't treat a nine-year-old's opinion on art as equal to the advice of someone who's painted for twenty years. We don't take career suggestions from someone who was just fired for sleeping in the back room. Please don't believe that all opinions should be treated with equal amounts of validity.

Reason why i've been arguing, ever since i came back, about debating starting points and rethinking both rules and from where they steem. I've shared twice now something i believe to be a good framework for situation, but i feel that some people just don't want to know about it.
Please stop it with the whole martyr thing, it's not helping any sort of discussion. Act like adults. If you want respect, don't act like a coddled baby needing protection.
And yes, I do believe that each and every person has the right to an opinion, as long as they state it in a respectful manner. If you don't, you're the one in the wrong.
sure, and they have the responsibility to keep it to themselves if it is horribly bigoted and inflamatory and hateful
There's no nazi-zombies here that I've seen so I think we're safe.