|
I was not able to come up with even a slightly reasonable 50-character title, so sorry for that. At least it shows what I want to discuss here (as I was wisely told by Plexa to do, instead of beating that in the respective threads). In fact, there are several issues that are kind of distinct, yet they are intetwined - and I really don't think that you would like me to start 5 threads at once. Also, a long wall of text is incoming, probably with a lot of grammar mistakes - if you are interested, please bear with me, as a non-english speaker, whose formal english education is lacking (I learned most of what I know from communication with people).
Let me start with a praise, to get some positive vibe: I really like the fact the TL is moderated and that nonsense without information value is kept low. That is quite good. I also agree with the stance that "this is your house" and I believe that it is the moderators' full right to moderate, as they see fit. But I think that it does not mean that we should not discuss opinions on that process. I beliebe that TL has already outgrown the usual answer to anti-moderation comments - "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" - while it is still "your house" it is also a place of a certain value for a large group of people.
I personally see a big part of this value in the General forum. It is the place, where you can discuss interesing issues from various feeds in an atmosphere that is far from what you would see on some typical random discussion board. But recently I see increasing number of occasisons when this discussion is being unnecessarily hindered, because the topic is "sensitive".
I first commented about this in the "transgener model thread". Honestly, I would not care much about that topic, besides general curiosity, but the mod note caugth my eye. Then I actually dug out some bans from the thread in the ABL and saw, what I was afraid of: people were being banned for (loosely qouting) "not understanding the distinction between sex and gender". It is obvious that some mods think otherwise, but you should really see that the mere existence of such distinction is a matter of opinion. It may be scientific opinion, but it is still an opinion - human sciences are not exact like mathematics (event though many of their practicioners may insist on the oposite) and forcing such opinions on people is inherently bad. (To be absolutely clear, I am not against banning people makeing he/she jokes, they bering nothing to discussion. I am only against banning people for having opinions that you disagree with.)
But even more of a red flag to me was the reasoning that "this is a sensitive topic" - because I believe that this implies the logic that when some topic is "sensitive" (meaning "somebody says that he does not like people to talk about it") - people should rather not talk about it, or do it in some mysterious "sensitive" way - otherwise, someone could get, god forbid, "offended" (I am not willing to let this terrible word unrestrained quotes, never ever!) Do you see why is that bad? If you don't, I am not sure that I am able to explain, because it seems absolutely natural to me. When things are so "sensitive" that they make people care so much, it means they should be discussed more, thorougly and freely, so that we can understand them better, if they are so important to people - not discussed less. Moreover, the whole "not to offend" approach means that people get actually the more influence on the discussion the whinier they are! How is that not absurd? When you are easily "offended" by internet discussion, why do you read it in the first place?
I used that one thread as an example, but this is a society-wide issue - the "political correctness" (this name is now slightly absurd as the problem has long ago outgrewn the scope of politicis, bat whatever) that stems from the will "not to offend" people is spreading as a plague through our societies, hindering any discussion at the will of random "offence takers".
The last drop ame today, when I read the Travyon Martin thread. The OP is actually a thrilling read (I really got physically cold hands reading it), but the mod note is killing it. I feel almost sorry for the author, who invested so much time into it, only to be on the same page with that. But even if we but aside the blatantly (and absolutely unneccesarrily) arrogant tone (and the "sensitive issue" falacy), the "What does my post contribute?" line is an absolute disaster.
After reading the post, I am literally swarming with questions. Questions about the society, that I don't understand, where things that seems outright insane (such as "confronting a suspiscious individual" or a "neighbourhood watch") seem to be the norm. But can I ask them? Would it contribute to the thread? Wouldn't it be even "country bashing"? What is the "standart set"? Can I discuss only if I have some information on the topic? What about simple curiosity? What will be seen as "improving upon" the post? And, honestly, last but not least... who the hell is that guy that he is so condescending to anyone that reads the thread? Is being a "mod" on some gaming website really such a moral authority? I don't think so.
Sure, on-liners, rudeness and whatever should be moderated to the limit, so that we can have a discussion. But this is just scaring people from having the discussion in the first place.
It seems to me that TL would like to be the place for interesting, civil and informative discussions, but that it almost is such - the only thing the keeping the site from reaching that ideal is its own desire to do it, manifested by brutal overdoing of it.
Or is that just that the moderators are power hungry adolescents and I am just overthinking and wishing for too much? 
|
K I read your post in its entirety.
I fully agree with your basic thought: Sensitivity of an issue should not prevent it from being discussed. Absolutely not.
I also agree on the part about social sciences where you say that they aren't exact sciences, in a sense that things are rarely black or white; rather, most of the time, they are somewhere in between and subject to opinion.
Now, once you get into the concrete part, you start losing me.
On April 15 2012 06:56 opisska wrote:
The last drop ame today, when I read the Travyon Martin thread. The OP is actually a thrilling read (I really got physically cold hands reading it), but the mod note is killing it. I feel almost sorry for the author, who invested so much time into it, only to be on the same page with that. But even if we but aside the blatantly (and absolutely unneccesarrily) arrogant tone (and the "sensitive issue" falacy), the "What does my post contribute?" line is an absolute disaster.
After reading the post, I am literally swarming with questions. Questions about the society, that I don't understand, where things that seems outright insane (such as "confronting a suspiscious individual" or a "neighbourhood watch") seem to be the norm. But can I ask them? Would it contribute to the thread? Wouldn't it be even "country bashing"? What is the "standart set"? Can I discuss only if I have some information on the topic? What about simple curiosity? What will be seen as "improving upon" the post? And, honestly, last but not least... who the hell is that guy that he is so condescending to anyone that reads the thread? Is being a "mod" on some gaming website really such a moral authority? I don't think so.
Sure, on-liners, rudeness and whatever should be moderated to the limit, so that we can have a discussion. But this is just scaring people from having the discussion in the first place.
I don't feel the moderation in this thread is a disaster. Neither is the mod note. The problem these kinds of topics were having is just that people come in, know nothing about the subject and start posting their uneducated, inflammatory, hurtful opinions on things they've never thought about or that they've never experienced. Mod intervention is necessary to stop these threads from derailing (which can only lead to eventual closure) and to keep their quality up. Mods aren't against those topics being discussed, it's the opposite actually: they fear that without some kind of guideline, those threads will plummet into stupidity and hostility, without producing anything constructive. What they're trying to achieve - by modnotes and moderation - is to keep the thread alive. It's trying to keep the cancer out of the thread, not to kill the thread itself (4chan reference, meh).
On your concrete questions: Of course you can ask questions. Try to read the OP, so you know what you're talking about, but after that, feel free to ask. Not everybody knows how neighborhood watch works, or how it's like being transgender. Asking is good, it prevents you from thinking on the basis of possibly wrong facts, so that in the end you'll be able to discuss the topic.
In a strict sense, asking questions isn't exactly contributing. But it's still encouraged, unless you're just being too lazy to go look up the information for yourself (not implying you are).
Basically, mods try to refrain from moderating the threads in a moral, subjective way. (If you think they are, post examples.) People sometimes have harsh opinions, but as long as you phrase them in a normal way, you don't have to fear anything.
|
Canada11218 Posts
I can't speak for all moderators, but I think in general, there's been a feeling that the discussion in General has been steadily declining with a lot of driveby posters that post one thoughtless comment or inflammatory comment and leave. Or alternatively, in the really sensitive topics, people get locked into a battle with a fellow poster and become less and less reasonable.
I think we would like to discuss a lot of different issues, but we also want to forestall a flame war. I don't think it is ever our intention to shut down an opposing view if it is discussed in a respectful and well thought out manner. The problem comes with the sheer volume posters on TL where a conversation often spirals out in multiple directions and the well thought out dissent turns into frustration and poor posting.
As much as you seem to downplay sensitivity and offense... and I just feel the inevitable Steve Hughes clip... but what often get's lost is there are people on the other end and the stronger the views, the more careful (imo) dissension should be discussed. But not that the discussion should be stopped altogether.
I think I agree with your post in principle, but I think what you are also seeing a shift in trying to clean up General a bit.
|
I look at the posts about sensitive subjects and the demand for careful posting as a necessity.
Sure, some users may be intimidated and not contribute nor ask questions. Myself included often times. If this is the price paid to cut out many endless pages of arguments between individuals based on their opinions and feelings, worth it.
TL is a busy forum with many users, some who stay and contribute, some who lurk, some who come in to cause chaos. There needs to be balance and firm guidelines make this the forum of choice for many users.
|
In addition to what Falling said, the "extra-moderation" is there to prevent derailing. Before the mods started using mod notes and stuff, a fuck load of General topics would derail into something that deserved a separate thread. Just think of anytime a murder story in the US gets turned into a 2nd Amendment debate. I haven't read the Trayvon Martin thread, but I bet if it would be moderated any less, the thread would just degenerate into the old rehashed 2nd Amendment debate (if it hasn't already). If you're really that interested in it, go make another well developed OP or dig up an old thread and revive discussion. Otherwise, the vaguely related posts just clutter the thread. When reading about Trayvon Martin or that guy who got shot by a policeman 10 times, I don't want to read about US firearm laws, I want to read about the damn topic.
|
I think Spekulatius was quite right that my concrete examples were lacking. So I went to ABL to look for another one (yes, it is kinda strange to go to ABL to do ... anything reasonable ... but I hope I can be forgiven. And very quickly found the following example. It almost seems like the mods wanted to give me better arguments
So there is a banned post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=329937¤tpage=2#23 in some rape-related thread. (I do not like threads like that very much ... raping someone seems such an utterly absurd think to me that I really don't have much to discuss there, I just can't understand the thoughts of the rapers at all). Please note, that the post is no vulgar or anything.
The ban reason (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1222#24421) is basically a counter argument that, in my opinion, would nicely work as a reply in the thread. It seems that the guy was just banned for his opinion (which I consider stupid, but that is not the point).
Is that clearer now?
|
Oh wow.
I completely agree with you on that one, opisska. I stand by my previous point that I rarely find moderation action too subjective but on this case I must concur.
I won't go into discussing the post and the ban reason at hand because the problem at hand is that both are simply views of the same matter, expressed in a non-offending way. The content and the consequences of the banned post are what got the poster banned and this is, at least in my opinion completely unjustified. The ban happened based on a divergence of opinion which should never be the reason for a ban. This is blatant moral totalitarianism.
The ban, put in a nutshell, is saying "your post reeks of the point of view A that I despise". As strongly as I agree with Kwark in what he says in his ban message, this should in no way be reason to moderate. Not on a civilized forum like this one.
Nobody said rape is good. They said rape is likely to occur in certain circumstances which is stating the facts. Just because the poster at hand didn't say explicitly that he condemns rape was enough to ban him. That's disgusting.
This is even more frightening considering the next ban on the list was given with the same ban reasoning (although, admittedly, his post reeked of stupidity).
edit: To what falling said above: Moderation is clearly aimed at preventing flamewars. The post didn't incite one. There were responses on the same page (the only page that I read) that were disagreeing politely. So that's not it either. I'm baffled.
|
Your example is of a guy getting banned for essentially saying that rape is the victim's fault. His statement that it's just the way it is, of COURSE it's going to happen basically disowns any personal responsibility on the part of the rapist, and dumps it in the lap of the victim. Ignoring the part where it's utterly stupid (and a lot of ban reasons on stuff like that are copy/pasted to fit a category), it's a pile of shit, and suggests an underlying mentality of intolerance. (This is MANS work, bitch, get out mindset.)
In other words, all sorts of shit worth moderating to keep the community standards up.
And bear in mind, I've got a reasonably extensive mod history, and even with that, I think these guys are often too nice.
|
The problem here is that "keeping community stardards up" means moderating unpopular opinions.
I don't disagree with Kwark's opinion, as I expressed in my previous post, but divergence of opinion shouldn't be bannable. Not on a forum that holds its standards high.
|
Ok, well, consider this: Half of what's bannable on this site is opinion related. You say discussion, they say flamebait. I say debate, they temp me for being an asshole (no, really, several times. I've been on the receiving end of the hammer, and I say they're too nice half the time). You see an unpopular opinion, I see an underlying attitude that won't further discussion.
By what you're saying, caster and player bashing should be ok, it's just an unpopular opinion. Balance whine? Just an opinion they don't like.
You can't have purely 100% objective standards and still keep the standards high. Rules end up being arbitrarily excessive or easily dodged.
|
United States41644 Posts
There are two different issues here.
One is simply the requirement of people to inform themselves on the issue rather than simply spurt out the first thing that comes to mind. It is this that a lot of people in the transgender thread fell victim to, their lack of even the most basic knowledge of transgender issues meant that they were incapable of contributing anything to the topic and would be better served by simply reading the discussion of those who knew more and informing themselves. An ongoing problem we've had with general is that people just read the title of a topic, write the first dozen words that come to mind and then hit post before going on their way and never again checking the topic. People tend not to read the replies of others, nor to reply to each other, nor check back and see if anyone has replied to them. This environment actively discourages people who are interested in the topic from attempting a discussion because it's simply not worth the effort involved in writing out an informative and well structured argument only to be drowned out in minutes and have the intended recipient never read it.
In the transgender topic the people who really ought to have viewed it as read only were fairly easy to find, they were the ones who didn't understand the difference between sex and gender. I see absolutely nothing wrong with simply removing them. They, of course, screamed about communist Nazis but that is inevitable, they're idiots, I don't expect them to understand why they got removed. If they'd read any of the excellent posts that spawned from the harsh moderation of that topic they would have worked it out but they won't because they're not interested in the subject, that's why they're so uninformed, they just wanted to throw their one liner in and leave.
The moderation of the topic was sufficiently strict to encourage people such as Iyerbeth to make posts such as the one spoilered below and I'm proud to have been a part of that.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly. First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments. Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed. First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people. White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging studyThe microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatmentRegional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualismGiven then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like? No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing. Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he". First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them. Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)? Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things. Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.** * Harry Benjamin Standards of Care** Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignmentI ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting). Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings. That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
The second issue is about whether we should tolerate views which are uninformed to the point of being unwelcome in any civilised discussion. In my opinion there is a grey area here and different moderators will draw it subjectively in different places. I recently banned a few people from the rape in the military topic for being rape apologists. Now, obviously an apologist view doesn't necessarily have to be uninformed and non contributing but equally, fuck them. It is a serious issue in society and the way it is treated by a surprising amount of people, and more vocally among the online young male demographic, is incredibly offputting to anyone with any experience with the subject. I want to hold teamliquid to a higher standard than that and there has been a surprising amount of support for my approach in that topic.
Regarding the note about contributing in the Trayvon topic, you are of course welcome to discuss the details or ask questions or anything along those lines. What we want to discourage in that kind of topic (dramatic topical headline) is a swarm of people reading the title and going "personally, I think death is bad" or something along those lines.
|
I find that some moderation recently has been excessive. Like, really excessive. It is TL's house, and it's moderated great, but some threads just degenerate into "hugboxes" like the TG miss universe thread.
With regards to the threads about TG issues/people, a ton of people get banned just for saying "he" about a transsexual even when it is a constructive/nice comment. While I'm sure they would prefer to be called "she," you have to understand that some people don't see them as female, and won't refer to them as such. Sure if it's tongue-in-cheek or blatantly offensive it's not OK, but I think that to ban people for the reason that they don't see someone a certain way is bad.
For a metaphor, I could identify myself as a masters player in SC2. Now, I'm in platinum. But I truly believe that I have the skill of a masters player and that I belong there. Can I blame people for calling me a platinum player?
This is not exclusive to that specific issue. I find that in a few threads about "sensitive issues" (including the sexual abuse in military one) people get banned just for opinions that differ too wildly from the norm or that a moderator considers wrong, even though the posts themselves are not blatantly offensive. I find that KwarK does this quite often, and if I look through the automated ban list, I find that his bans are most often the ones that I disagree with.
While I love the somewhat strict, safe, and great environment that is TL, I'd just rather not have it turn into a place where everyone is just a carbon copy of each other when it comes to these issues. A million posts saying "Oh, that's so bad! How could they do that?" don't make for good threads.
|
United States41644 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:
While I love the somewhat strict, safe, and great environment that is TL, I'd just rather not have it turn into a place where everyone is just a carbon copy of each other when it comes to these issues. A million posts saying "Oh, that's so bad! How could they do that?" don't make for good threads.
Don't worry, I ban for that too.
There have been a decent number of contributing posts in the rape in the military topic including a number of very informative posts from current and retired servicemen detailing their experience with the subject and the way it is dealt with. There's a fairly huge middle ground between blaming women for rape and blindly disapproving of it without contributing anything. In that topic teamliquid has successfully found it.
|
@ Kwark's first post
#1 is a perfectly valid, because objective ban reason. I wish you'd have sticked to that instead of disagreeing with him in the ban message which made it look like a simple dissent.
#2 is problematic. I see the "rape apologetic tone" in the banned post, but it's not clear he really is a rape apologist or tries to downplay the importance of the issue. The post itself was pure fact: rape happens in these kinds of circumstances of male-dominated areas where women are a rare sight, where men are hungry for sex and their testosterone is flowing. And even if he was, I'd have issues with banning him outright.
The moderation could have occured simply based on #1. "Inform yourself about the topic beforehand and don't write non-contributing, low-content posts." It sounds that much more legitimate.
There are always unpopular opinions and theories that I don't subscribe to but I'm open to people who convince me otherwise. If someone were to write an educated essay, defending the rape apologetic view, or creationism, or the relation between blood type and character, I'd be glad to read it. Don't ban those diverging opinions based solely on their character. Ban them because they don't contribute (1-liners) or because the posters didn't read the thread and write factual bullshit.
|
On April 19 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:
While I love the somewhat strict, safe, and great environment that is TL, I'd just rather not have it turn into a place where everyone is just a carbon copy of each other when it comes to these issues. A million posts saying "Oh, that's so bad! How could they do that?" don't make for good threads.
Have you read that thread recently? It looks NOTHING like that. The discussion is all over the place on several relevant topics within the topic. What matters is that posts enable a dialogue.
|
On April 19 2012 06:51 Spekulatius wrote:
#2 is problematic. I see the "rape apologetic tone" in the banned post, but it's not clear he really is a rape apologist or tries to downplay the importance of the issue. .
I think it very clearly is. Some people seem to think that ones intent absolves them from its effects. One can be racist while, in their heart of hearts, truly intend nothing of the sort. Even if he were meaning that in the most benevolent manner possible (and I see no real ill will from him), It still makes him a rape apologist. He is shifting the blame from the rapist to the raped.
|
^ How do you get that from what he said?
He said rape is wrong.
[...] nomatter how wrong it is that is a fact.
He said it's unfortunate, but it's human nature.
But you can't utterly rely on your comrades, its the human nature that is the problem.
He just has a depressing, albeit very realistic look onto life.
we can try as hard as we want the world will never be perfect, and woman will allways be putting themselves at risk in these situations
I find myself agreeing with everything he says. You can blame him for stating there's nothing that can be done - there obviously is - but I don't see how he's apologizing rapists. There's a difference between explaining stuff and apologizing its occurence.
I fail to see the link between "Rape happens. It's human nature" (what he said) and "Rapists in the army aren't as bad humans as we make them be. The circumstances excuse their deeds" (what rape apologism means if I understood correctly). You're trying to read very hard between the lines.
|
On April 19 2012 07:12 Spekulatius wrote:^ How do you get that from what he said? He said rape is wrong. He said it's unfortunate, but it's human nature. Show nested quote +But you can't utterly rely on your comrades, its the human nature that is the problem. He just has a depressing, albeit very realistic look onto life. Show nested quote +we can try as hard as we want the world will never be perfect, and woman will allways be putting themselves at risk in these situations I find myself agreeing with everything he says. You can blame him for stating there's nothing that can be done - there obviously is - but I don't see how he's apologizing rapists. There's a difference between explaining stuff and apologizing its occurence. I fail to see the link between "Rape happens. It's human nature" (what he said) and "Rapists in the army aren't as bad humans as we make them be. The circumstances excuse their deeds" (what rape apologism means if I understood correctly). You're trying to read very hard between the lines.
Saying it's human nature is trying to put responsibility off in and of itself. Human nature implies it's a biological fact, and those should generally just be accepted, because we can't overcome or avoid such things.
|
Human behavior is a mixture between our genetical predispositions and the decisions we make.
Denying the genetic contribution to our actions is impossible. It doesn't imply we have no responsibility for what we do though.
But that's not even the point here. We're entering a debate on determinism. The question should be: is there an objective ban reason for the post at hand? And there is. A difference on opinion is not it, though.
|
On April 19 2012 07:33 Spekulatius wrote:
Human behavior is a mixture between our genetical predispositions and the decisions we make.
Denying the genetic contribution to our actions is impossible. It doesn't imply we have no responsibility for what we do though.
But that's not even the point here. We're entering a debate on determinism. The question should be: is there an objective ban reason for the post at hand? And there is. A difference on opinion is not it, though.
The issue is, though, that if a stance is sufficiently harmful/bad, that difference in opinion is pretty consistently a valid ban reason. The only real difference between banning for "Rape isn't entirely the rapist's fault" and "I don't think black people should have the right to vote" is how many people would stand up and gripe about being banned about that. Both are "Just a difference of opinion", but I'd have strong doubts that too many people would be up in arms about someone holding the latter opinion getting banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
