Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[pErvinalia]

Simply.

[Exi5tentialist]

Simply.

The simpler the better, obviously!

[pErvinalia]

[Exi5tentialist]

Steady on now. 5 syllables is going some.

[pErvinalia]

That's why I had to use a smiley.

[Forty Two]

indissolubly

[Brian Peacock]

Continuing with Exi5tentialists remarks, taken from here...

The fact is you can be extremely personal by couching all your arguments as arguments about somebody's ideas. After an onslaught of being told your "ideas" are cretinous, retarded, stupid, regressive leftist, islamophobic, racist or whatever there is absolutely no difference in effect from saying that you are a cretin, a retard, a regressive leftist, an islamophobic, a racist or whatever. By forbidding one formulation of nasty attacck and allowing another formulation, you just end up with a whole load of nasty attacks. I think a forum set up like that might as well just allow nasty attacks and be done with it. At least the result woudl be more balanced and in line with everyday life. Continuing to maintain the false division between ideas and people just encourages worse and worse treatment of people. It skews the forum into having a default mode which is nasty - because it encourages nastiness couched as attacks on ideas.

Interestingly, the net result is exactly the same as the type of forum that tries to set up a "safe space". Pretending there is a division between ideas and people and then imposing that artificial construction as a rule is Rationalia's way of setting up a safe space. But we know that attempts to set up these safe spaces result in serious power imbalances as the people the space is designed to protect claim victimhood and then go on to exert power unjustly on others. That's why I'm back here. Rationalia holds exactly the same ideological/philosophical stance as Atheism Plus. The two places are just as bad as each other in that respect.

Ultimately yes I would encourage moderation - whether in an online forum, or discussion about islam, or anywhere - but I would base it on a participants' subjective judgement about the level of nastiness that could be tolerated, not on some absolutist rule which is philosophically unsound and leads to distorted conversations going on all the time.

As I have asked you directly before, what is your alternative for managing the discourse of others? How would you mitigate challenges to peoples ideas, beliefs and opinion such that no offence was possible or duly or unduly taken? Are you not, in effect, simply re-iterating the get-out-of-jail-free card deployed with woeful frequency by the self-righteous, to cite that offence or harm has been caused must justify measures of restitution regardless of the merits, or otherwise, of the matter at hand?

For example, if I cited in all sincerity that remarks of your own which implied that taking issue with Islam is emblematic of racism and Islamophobia were deeply and personally hurtful and comprise 'a nasty attack', as you put it, would you be inclined to recant, rescind or redact said remarks? Or would, perhaps, feel entitled to argue the toss over their justification?

[Exi5tentialist]

As I have asked you directly before, what is your alternative for managing the discourse of others? How would you mitigate challenges to peoples ideas, beliefs and opinion such that no offence was possible or duly or unduly taken? Are you not, in effect, simply re-iterating the get-out-of-jail-free card deployed with woeful frequency by the self-righteous, to cite that offence or harm has been caused must justify measures of restitution regardless of the merits, or otherwise, of the matter at hand?

For example, if I cited in all sincerity that remarks of your own which implied that taking issue with Islam is emblematic of racism and Islamophobia were deeply and personally hurtful and comprise 'a nasty attack', as you put it, would you be inclined to recant, rescind or redact said remarks? Or would, perhaps, feel entitled to argue the toss over their justification?

You're looking for an objective standard to judge comments by; there is none.

I'd suggest get rid of the "attack the idea, not the person" rule. Then elect moderators to make subjective judgements. Then if members don't like the judgements individual moderators make, they can simply not vote for them next time round.

Everybody's subjectivity is in play then.

[rainbow]

You imply there is a problem.

There isn't.

[Brian Peacock]

As I have asked you directly before, what is your alternative for managing the discourse of others? How would you mitigate challenges to peoples ideas, beliefs and opinion such that no offence was possible or duly or unduly taken? Are you not, in effect, simply re-iterating the get-out-of-jail-free card deployed with woeful frequency by the self-righteous, to cite that offence or harm has been caused must justify measures of restitution regardless of the merits, or otherwise, of the matter at hand?

For example, if I cited in all sincerity that remarks of your own which implied that taking issue with Islam is emblematic of racism and Islamophobia were deeply and personally hurtful and comprise 'a nasty attack', as you put it, would you be inclined to recant, rescind or redact said remarks? Or would, perhaps, feel entitled to argue the toss over their justification?

You're looking for an objective standard to judge comments by; there is none.

Nope, I'm making sceptical challenges to your assertions, framed as questions, the answers to which would, hopefully, illuminate the detail of your position.

I'd suggest get rid of the "attack the idea, not the person" rule.

Lovely. It is quite clear what you think the solution should be, but I'd be grateful if you bring a little more illumination to the problem now. At the moment your thesis maintains that protecting a right to disagree encourages 'nasty attacks' etc. I'm interesting in your reasoning and your alternatives.

Then elect moderators to make subjective judgements. Then if members don't like the judgements individual moderators make, they can simply not vote for them next time round.

Everybody's subjectivity is in play then.

When is everyone's subjectivity not in play when it comes to typing a response into a box on a discussion forum, or reading the responses of others? Nonetheless, when it comes to the possibility of electing moderators can you expand on the nature of the conditions you think such a process could or should entail? It's all very well to propose a 'solution' - even to an as yet un-clearly defined problem - but it is yet another to actually demonstrate that one has put a little more into the idea than simply grabbing it as it floats across one's forebrain.