Political discourse on The Comment Section

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:59 am

Look, can't we just all agree that this jar of mayonnaise is a dumbfuck?
Spoiler: show
Image
  • 0

Image
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 12452
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Queen of the Furrets

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Fun With Mr. Fudge » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:06 am

Kate wrote:I want to take some public responsibility for that, Jim, since you seem to be particularly mad at Tess but I think I'm the one who originally mentioned that because I am the one who followed Noodle on G+ for awhile for a few reasons (I often agree with her, I like her art, and I think she's funny and clever) and that is what I thought I saw in her posts there. I could dig back for it, but it is a daunting task, I have a baby to take care of who is sick and I'm also sick right now. And frankly I can't think of a minute in my life where I have the space to do that unless it's of vital importance. And it's not that you're not important to me, but I have a strong feeling that even if I found it you still wouldn't think that excuses what you see as an insult. I don't want you to be mad at Tess for something that I originally said.

That was a good part of why this made me so uncomfortable; I genuinely believed Noodle had identified as such and people saying that was inherently a bad thing upset me. I am relieved that I am mistaken, because public opinion seems to be it's okay to say that anyone who identifies as alt-right is bad so it's obviously an insult. And I still do not agree with that.

ETA: and most importantly, I am sorry first of all for apparently making the mistake in how I read her posts, and secondly for any hurt that I have caused with that.


I, for one, don't accept your apology. I think it's horrible that you might have gotten something wrong. Mistakes never happen, only lies, insults, and misdirections. Unless we're suggesting that black people are inherently violent, gay people have a pedophile problem, or some other stereotyped group fits its stereotype. I think it's way less likely for conversations to be offensive if we just stick to those kinds of issues because people never distort facts or try to hide horrible views in prettier-sounding language during those exchanges. I also think cmsellers owes me (yes, me specifically) an apology for possibly making a mistake about someone's political views. That's not something lighthearted like rape or racism, and you should have known how offended people would get if you got that detail wrong. Now, can we get back to whether Tess defends pedophilia? I heard that a reliable source said something about that.
  • 5

User avatar
Fun With Mr. Fudge
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
Show rep
Title: Jackbooted Hug

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DoglovingJim » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:09 am

Kate wrote:ETA: and most importantly, I am sorry first of all for apparently making the mistake in how I read her posts, and secondly for any hurt that I have caused with that.


You have no reason to apologize Kate, hopefully you and your child get better. And I'm not mad at Tess, just a bit annoyed that she wanted to justify CMSsellers claim that Noodle-Fox was Alt-Right when she never said no such thing herself (regardless I hope that I didn't come off as too hostile to her, in which case I apologise). Once upon a time I had to deal with people trying to put words in my mouth that I never said, and as a result I spent a long time as a loner so this was where I dug my trench. I wouldn't just let it go by, it felt wrong to me inside.

And regardless Kate, like you said you did not view Alt-Right as an insult even though others including Noodle-Fox could so it was simply an honest mistake. You didn't realise it'd turn into this, it wasn't intentional.


Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:I, for one, don't accept your apology. I think it's horrible that you might have gotten something wrong. Mistakes never happen, only lies, insults, and misdirections. Unless we're suggesting that black people are inherently violent, gay people have a pedophile problem, or some other stereotyped group fits its stereotype. I think it's way less likely for conversations to be offensive if we just stick to those kinds of issues because people never distort facts or try to hide horrible views in prettier-sounding language during those exchanges. I also think cmsellers owes me (yes, me specifically) an apology for possibly making a mistake about someone's political views. That's not something lighthearted like rape or racism, and you should have known how offended people would get if you got that detail wrong. Now, can we get back to whether Tess defends pedophilia? I heard that a reliable source said something about that.


Now people like Mr. Fudge however seem to once more trying to turn this into something it isn't, for your information sir I do not think that Tess is defending pedophilia. As made evident I view that everyone was misinterpreting everyone but nobody gave Noodle-Fox a chance, and now she is gone. The fact that now we'd have to attach labels to people, exaggerate things and in your case be really sarcastic to try and downgrade any potential deferring perspectives I feel that in this case we did not conduct ourselves as welcoming.

We are starting to become an in-group of ideals and to be quite honest those of differing views appear to be reluctant to express those views, and what happened with Noodle-Fox in that she eventually was basically turned into some homophobic and trans-phobic Alt-Right fanatic when she is none of those things (she certainly didn't demonstrate any in her comments) isn't helping. Do we as an evolving forum (there are certainly not many puns and role-playing [*coughs Bear Jew*] going around anymore, everything seems real and gritty) want to be diverse or only accept like-minded people in our own little bubble of agreements?

If we want to be diverse is this the way to do it? Since these forums are public, people will read them and they will see what happened, what would they think? Is the way to conduct ourselves appropriately is to pile on one person like a wolf pack if they make any mistake, while we expect special treatment for ourselves when we screw up and the benefit of the doubt? Instead of asking her to elaborate that one line we decided to target her for it, and refuse to let it go when it was obvious that her focus was on something else (eg, the alleged child molester) and that she was breaking down emotionally. Heck that one line made several people angry, so why didn't we give her a chance to elaborate and try and clear up the confusion? Regardless these threads were supposed to be general discussions then why are we making them debates? Why are we allowing emotions to flare, why when it was obvious people were getting uncomfortable and emotional did we still continue?

I feel that this whole thing was done wrongly, how it happened and what happened after. And I have a big feeling that this is going to simply repeat itself since very little seem to even care, especially since now we got precedent.
  • 2

Last edited by DoglovingJim on Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!

skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!

Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
User avatar
DoglovingJim
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:07 am
Location: No block of land is going to tie Jim and his dogs down.
Show rep
Title: Manly Man

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Tesseracts » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:29 am

DoglovingJim wrote:
Kate wrote:ETA: and most importantly, I am sorry first of all for apparently making the mistake in how I read her posts, and secondly for any hurt that I have caused with that.


You have no reason to apologize Kate, hopefully you and your child get better. And I'm not mad at Tess, just a bit annoyed that she wanted to justify CMSsellers claim that Noodle-Fox was Alt-Right when she never said no such thing herself. Once upon a time I had to deal with people trying to put words in my mouth that I never said, and as a result I spent a long time as a loner so this was where I dug my trench. I wouldn't just let it go by, it felt wrong to me inside.

And regardless Kate, like you said you did not view Alt-Right as an insult even though others including Noodle-Fox could so it was simply an honest mistake. You didn't realise it'd turn into this, it wasn't intentional.

Kate's opinion on this subject is exactly the same as mine, and as Kate said I was repeating something she originally said. It is obvious some of you have a problem with me and certain others that goes deeper than this one issue.
  • 7

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Fun With Mr. Fudge » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:45 am

DoglovingJim wrote:Now people like Mr. Fudge however seem to once more trying to turn this into something it isn't, for your information sir I do not think that Tess is defending pedophilia.


For your information, I never said or thought you did. That satement was not directed at you. But someone did accuse Tess of defending pedophilia. I think that accusation was made in bad faith, but I also realize I could be wrong.

As made evident I view that everyone was misinterpreting everyone but nobody gave Noodle-Fox a chance, and now she is gone.


I don't think she wasn't given a chance to clarify herself. I almost feel like we didn't read the same exchanges. Then again, maybe we just interpreted them differently. Also, she wasn't banned, so she's gone by choice.

The fact that now we'd have to attach labels to people, exaggerate things and in your case be really sarcastic to try and downgrade any potential deferring perspectives I feel that in this case we did not conduct ourselves as welcoming.


I was being more facetious than sarcastic. I find this focus on cmsellers' post absurd by this point and made an absurd post reflecting that while also pointing out that in my view, the nature of these conversations is such that some people will get offended. Moreover, I wanted to indirectly point out that sometimes people are not entirely honest (sometimes even with themselves) about their views, especially if they're considered offensive. That's not directed at anyone in particular. I just think that's true.

Also, I find it incredibly unwelcoming to portray being alt-right as an insult, not because I identify as such but because it implies such people are not welcome here. I find it unwelcoming to call someone a liar or claim they were exaggerating for interpreting a series of words that could, in my view, actually be summarized in the apparently offensive way that they were. It's one thing to disagree, another to attribute ill-intent on the basis of having a different interpretation of those specific words.

We are starting to become an in-group of ideals and to be quite honest those of differing views appear to be reluctant to express those views, and what happened with Noodle-Fox in that she eventually was basically turned into some homophobic and trans-phobic Alt-Right fanatic when she is none of those things (she certainly didn't demonstrate any in her comments) isn't helping.


Really? So this whole back-and-forth didn't demonstrate that people are allowed to disagree? Do we get to argue that transpeople are unqualified for the military because they don't have the mental stability and "mutilate" themselves without being able to suggest that such a position sounds or might be transphobic? Is the problem that a generally unpopular view got challanged? I really don't get what the argument is here. Not everyone said one thing about anyone. And I find it troubling that only certain people seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt.
  • 8

User avatar
Fun With Mr. Fudge
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
Show rep
Title: Jackbooted Hug

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DoglovingJim » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:20 am

Tesseracts wrote:
DoglovingJim wrote:
Kate wrote:ETA: and most importantly, I am sorry first of all for apparently making the mistake in how I read her posts, and secondly for any hurt that I have caused with that.


You have no reason to apologize Kate, hopefully you and your child get better. And I'm not mad at Tess, just a bit annoyed that she wanted to justify CMSsellers claim that Noodle-Fox was Alt-Right when she never said no such thing herself. Once upon a time I had to deal with people trying to put words in my mouth that I never said, and as a result I spent a long time as a loner so this was where I dug my trench. I wouldn't just let it go by, it felt wrong to me inside.

And regardless Kate, like you said you did not view Alt-Right as an insult even though others including Noodle-Fox could so it was simply an honest mistake. You didn't realise it'd turn into this, it wasn't intentional.

Kate's opinion on this subject is exactly the same as mine, and as Kate said I was repeating something she originally said. It is obvious some of you have a problem with me and certain others that goes deeper than this one issue.


I hope you are not referring to me, because I don't think I ever had a disagreement or any tension whatsoever with you before. In the case of why I'm not venting my frustrations on Kate is simple, she didn't even comment on the thread which sparked me off about Noodle-Fox being labeled as Alt-Right and even here she did not vocally defend using such a label and tried justifying it like you did (she mainly just expressed confusion as to why several viewed it as insulting).



Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:
DoglovingJim wrote:Now people like Mr. Fudge however seem to once more trying to turn this into something it isn't, for your information sir I do not think that Tess is defending pedophilia.


For your information, I never said or thought you did. That satement was not directed at you. But someone did accuse Tess of defending pedophilia. I think that accusation was made in bad faith, but I also realize I could be wrong.

Forgive me for my error, I assumed it was from the way you responded.

Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:
As made evident I view that everyone was misinterpreting everyone but nobody gave Noodle-Fox a chance, and now she is gone.


I don't think she wasn't given a chance to clarify herself. I almost feel like we didn't read the same exchanges. Then again, maybe we just interpreted them differently. Also, she wasn't banned, so she's gone by choice.

Yeah... I'm feeling we certainly did interpret them differently.


Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:
The fact that now we'd have to attach labels to people, exaggerate things and in your case be really sarcastic to try and downgrade any potential deferring perspectives I feel that in this case we did not conduct ourselves as welcoming.


I was being more facetious than sarcastic. I find this focus on cmsellers' post absurd by this point and made an absurd post reflecting that while also pointing out that in my view, the nature of these conversations is such that some people will get offended. Moreover, I wanted to indirectly point out that sometimes people are not entirely honest (sometimes even with themselves) about their views, especially if they're considered offensive. That's not directed at anyone in particular. I just think that's true.

Also, I find it incredibly unwelcoming to portray being alt-right as an insult, not because I identify as such but because it implies such people are not welcome here. I find it unwelcoming to call someone a liar or claim they were exaggerating for interpreting a series of words that could, in my view, actually be summarized in the apparently offensive way that they were. It's one thing to disagree, another to attribute ill-intent on the basis of having a different interpretation of those specific words.

Fair enough, you view peoples frustration over CMSellers labeling of Noodle-Fox as crazy. But some people don't feel that way, and especially not when this label was put upon Noodle-Fox solely on the basis of a few memes and having one or two similar viewpoints. The issue isn't that she was called "Alt-Right", it was that she herself didn't view herself as such and because the evidence to suggest such was poor. Regardless many people view being labeled as Alt-Right as an insult due to the movements close association with Neo-Nazi's, now we can argue about that until the cows come home but the fact is that Noodle-Fox didn't identify herself as Alt-Right and therefore shouldn't be labeled as such.

I do attribute ill-intent on his claims that Noodle-Fox was such, giving people labels that they don't want is wrong no matter what. CMSellers interpreted the possibility of Noodle-Fox claiming that Hollywood had a gay pedophile problem (according to you guys) as meaning that she is Alt-Right and feels that liberals are pedophiles, yep that's not a reach. He could have made his thread without using Noodle-Fox, as has been agreed upon by many.

And considering the whole thread was essentially a mockery of the Alt-Right by saying that they have an obsession with declaring their opponents pedophiles, backed up on the basis of a few anecdotes and one news-site. I don't think there is any intention for this forum to be welcoming to the Alt-Right, and it's not because of people like me who think that it's wrong to give people labels when they no longer are with us and therefore cannot call us out on our BS.


Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:
DoglovingJim wrote:We are starting to become an in-group of ideals and to be quite honest those of differing views appear to be reluctant to express those views, and what happened with Noodle-Fox in that she eventually was basically turned into some homophobic and trans-phobic Alt-Right fanatic when she is none of those things (she certainly didn't demonstrate any in her comments) isn't helping.


Really? So this whole back-and-forth didn't demonstrate that people are allowed to disagree? Do we get to argue that transpeople are unqualified for the military because they don't have the mental stability and "mutilate" themselves without being able to suggest that such a position sounds or might be transphobic? Is the problem that a generally unpopular view got challanged? I really don't get what the argument is here. Not everyone said one thing about anyone. And I find it troubling that only certain people seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt.

We certainly are in agreement with the bolded text, shame Noodle-Fox didn't get any.

And from what I read Noodle-Fox disagreed with transgendered people joining the military on the basis of several things such as the fact that according to her and the study she readthey are significantly more likely to be suicidal and she feels that the military should consist of the best of the best, a view like that doesn't imply she irrationally fears or hates transgendered people and is therefore transphobic. Next you'll be saying that she is a misogynist since she thought that women shouldn't have easier-passing requirements to men and do the same thing, that if they aren't as fit (as she says they are biologically not as fit as men) than they shouldn't be allowed to enlist.
  • 1

Image

Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!

skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!

Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
User avatar
DoglovingJim
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:07 am
Location: No block of land is going to tie Jim and his dogs down.
Show rep
Title: Manly Man

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby cmsellers » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:48 am

Several people have pointed out that saying "alt-right" is an insult suggests that alt-right views are inherently objectionable, and I second the notion that this is problematic. However let's pretend for a moment that "alt-right," is a term that denotes something inherently objectionable, like "Nazi," "racist," or "anti-semite." I'm going to switch the focus from the right to a popular position on the left which is not currently represented on TCS but easily could be.

Let us imagine TCS had a left-wing poster who complained about US support for Israel, complained about Zionism, and supported the BDS movement. I believe that I would be justified in describing this poster as anti-semitic. It would not be an insult, even if the poster insisted "I'm not an anti-Semite; I'm against all forms of racism including Zionism." Rather, it would represent my belief that singling out Israel for particular condemnation and treating Zionism as a racist ideology is inherently anti-Semitic.

Or on a more personal note, several people including Tess believe that my views on Islam are Islamophobic. Now, I get pissed when people call me Islamophobic: first because I believe it's a snarl word intended to allow equivocation between anti-Muslim bigotry and criticism of Islam, second because it suggests dislike of Islam is irrational. But I don't take people calling me "Islamophobic" as a personal attack, even though "Islamophobic" is inherently a negative word.

I've noticed that everybody complaining that I called NoodleFox "alt-right" is in a political minority on TCS, though since Jim is socially conservative and fiscally left-wing, while Logan is a libertarian in the opposite quadrant (I don't know what Lemon and Ladki's politics are though you both seem to lean right), I'm not sure if anything unites you beyond that. I'll also note that Tess, Kate, Marcuse, and myself are also in a political minority on TCS. Tess, Kate, and myself are libertarians, Marcuse is a conservative, and all of us hold at least a few views which the large majority of people TCS would find not merely wrong but morally objectionable. And it seems to me like this whole argument is over two conceptions of how TCS should handle minority views.

Some of you seem to be arguing that TCS ought to handle minority political views with kid gloves, no matter how offensive members of the minority might find them, and that we shouldn't use descriptive terms if they might hurt feelings. (And that's some SJW-logic right there.) I can't call NoodleFox "alt-right" because you see it as a smear, Gis can't call her transphobic and homophobic, and presumably Tess isn't allowed to call me Islamophobic. Hell, I can say that the world would be better off if Hitler had killed the other six million Jews, and you can't call me a "Nazi." This whole argument reminds me of the South Park episode "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson."

Randy Marsh wrote:Senators, I know it is not normally considered "American" to ban words. But there is one slur that has caused so much damage that we believe it should finally be made illegal. I'm talking, of course, about the term "nigger guy".
  • 9

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Fun With Mr. Fudge » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:36 pm

DoglovingJim wrote:
Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:
DoglovingJim wrote:Now people like Mr. Fudge however seem to once more trying to turn this into something it isn't, for your information sir I do not think that Tess is defending pedophilia.


For your information, I never said or thought you did. That satement was not directed at you. But someone did accuse Tess of defending pedophilia. I think that accusation was made in bad faith, but I also realize I could be wrong.

Forgive me for my error, I assumed it was from the way you responded.


There's no need to apologize. It was a misunderstanding. These things happen, which is a point that I and (I believe) others have made more than once.


I do attribute ill-intent on his claims...


And I think that's unfair.


And from what I read Noodle-Fox disagreed with transgendered people joining the military on the basis of several things such as the fact that according to her and the study she readthey are significantly more likely to be suicidal and she feels that the military should consist of the best of the best, a view like that doesn't imply she irrationally fears or hates transgendered people and is therefore transphobic.


Except that Gisambards already pointed out that there was no problem with citing statistics despite not agreeing with how those stats were interpreted. Gis specifically took issue with a different set of claims (i.e. the ones about mutilation and so forth). The existence of multiple arguments doesn't mean that people are wrong to focus on one of them. I'll give an example of what I mean.

Let's say someone wants to say that black children are not well suited for academic pursuits on in general. If someone cites a bunch of data about underachieving black students but then also says that black students are naturally lazier than other groups and just don't try hard, I will still think that person holds racist views, despite them also citing statistics. Furthermore, that doesn't mean I think the individual making that argument is a bad person, but I will think part of their argument is fueled by bad beliefs. Never mind the fact that the statistics about grades might relate to problems like underfunding in certain school districts (I've met students who struggled in certain classes because their schools couldn't afford books for those subjects, for example), class sizes, or other factors.

Similarly, we don't know why the stats about suicide rates among trans individuals are as they are or if trans people who choose to join the military show equally suicidal tendencies. And multiple empirical claims that were made were challenged on those grounds (effectively in my opinion). Moreover, I don't think someone needs to have an "irrational hatred" to be prejudiced about something.

Next you'll be saying that she is a misogynist since she thought that women shouldn't have easier-passing requirements to men and do the same thing, that if they aren't as fit (as she says they are biologically not as fit as men) than they shouldn't be allowed to enlist.


I don't know what you're assuming about my beliefs, if anything, but that is not an accurate representation. I'm fine with women being held to the same standards as men in the military. I would not be fine with them being barred from the military simply because they're women and thus less likely to pass tests. Women who can pass the requisite tests should be allowed to enter. That is my view, and I would not "label" Noodle a misogynist for thinking standards should not be changed, even if I didn't hold a similar (or the same) view.

Again, what is with this trend of assuming a desire to misconstrue or irrationally attack when it comes to critiquing certain possibly non-PC views? Perhaps you don't mean to do that, but that's what it looks like to me. If I say "something looks prejudiced" or "something has this broader bigotry-related context to consider" (which, by the way, I avoid doing sometimes, if not often, in conversations), I am not actively calling someone a bigot. I even spelled that out multiple times in this thread. And even if I did think somone had views that seemed or actually were racist/sexist/transphobic/whateverist that is not me calling them a bad person. If someone says that I am, that person is making assumptions about me or holding my beliefs to their personal standard. You would be free to suggest such a thing, and I would try to clarify. If you insisted I was calling them a bad person, I would call that an unfair characterization.

I believe people have a right to think things I think are bad. I sometimes think things that I know are bad. It takes more than that to make someone a generally bad person in my view. However, if I do raise an objection related to perceived or historically associated prejudices, it is because I see a potential harm in certain views being widespread. For some of us, such views directly impact how we have been or are treated by others in real life. (I suspect that's also true for you when it comes to certain ideas, perhaps even ones I've mentioned, but correct me if I'm wrong).

So if - for example - someone in my presence spreads the idea that black people are naturally lazy, unintelligent, or inclined to be violent criminals, I will want evidence whether I ask for it or not. And I will most likely think (even if I don't say) there is something inherently and harmfully racist about those views unless that person presents convincing evidence (as in evidence that I find convincing) that those things are true for biological reasons. I think those beliefs affect how civilians and police officers have treated me in various settings (in some cases I'm sure they have based on things said to me).

Bringing up the harms related to such beliefs is not driven by me wanting to shame or attack someone unfairly in my opinion. That's not even me thinking they're a bad person, just that in this respect they think something bad that can and sometimes does have bad real-world effects. Similarly, I don't believe Gisambards was just trying to unfairly attack someone but to point out what some see as a problematic and hurtful subset of beliefs that have real-world implications. We can chalk it all up to just knee-jerk exaggerations, unfair labeling, or something similar. But I don't think that's fair or accurate.
  • 5

Last edited by Fun With Mr. Fudge on Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fun With Mr. Fudge
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
Show rep
Title: Jackbooted Hug

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby sunglasses » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:41 pm

I'm often considered online part of a group that gets made fun of all the time and has rather negative connotations. I roll my eyes at it now. But yeah, when the anti SJW threads first came out I got uncomfortable. And the anti-gawker threads-i like the authors there and follow many of them on twitter. But, that's on me.

And as for noodle not being given the benefit of the doubt, I do want to remind people she's not banned. She can come back. She has said she's not- which is her choice. The crux of the matter is she took umbrage to being asked to back up her viewpoints with evidence in CAaSS.

Also, by your logic if I read and link one potentially flawed study and only focus on one paragraph and then dismiss any other interpretations of said study then that's perfectly logical. (Wait, that's actually what antivaxxers do.) If I'm misinterpreting this I do apologize.
  • 11

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby gisambards » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:13 pm

DoglovingJim wrote:And from what I read Noodle-Fox disagreed with transgendered people joining the military on the basis of several things such as the fact that according to her and the study she readthey are significantly more likely to be suicidal and she feels that the military should consist of the best of the best, a view like that doesn't imply she irrationally fears or hates transgendered people and is therefore transphobic.


This isn't giving Noodle the benefit of the doubt, this is bending yourself over backwards to defend her. You have intentionally omitted vast swathes of her argument to avoid the specific things that I said at the time and have said more recently I took issue with, and left only the things no-one ever said were transphobic.

Frankly, the claim Noodle never had the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. She did. She was not banned. No-one denied her the opportunity to defend herself. Multiple people tried to debate things with her, but she never actually wanted to. Now I'm sure the "Let's Give Noodle (but no-one else) The Benefit Of The Doubt" brigade will still insist that me suggesting there might be some prejudice to her argument was such an egregious insult that it justifies her refusal to engage in debate with anyone, but in actuality that's bullshit. Most of us here on this site who discuss politics have had to put up with have had our views attacked at some point, but you can't just insult everyone and refuse to engage in debate if you want that to change.
The fact is, this bizarre insistence we give Noodle, of all people, "the benefit of the doubt" (i.e. never criticise them) is just insulting. It's insulting to the right-wing users here who don't feel the need to go around insulting people in place of arguments and having tantrums whenever they're disagreed with, because it's acting like Noodle should be considered an average user of that type. It's insulting to those of us who actually tried to engage with Noodle at the time, because it's painting us as people who just insult people we don't like. And frankly it's insulting to the people Noodle was openly bigoted towards, because of the extent to which you're having to either ignore or dismiss genuinely prejudiced comments she made to make those of us who challenged them out to be the bad guys.
  • 10

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DamianaRaven » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:25 pm

I know it's off-topic, but I have my reasons!

Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
  • 0

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DoglovingJim » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:55 pm

gisambards wrote:
DoglovingJim wrote:And from what I read Noodle-Fox disagreed with transgendered people joining the military on the basis of several things such as the fact that according to her and the study she readthey are significantly more likely to be suicidal and she feels that the military should consist of the best of the best, a view like that doesn't imply she irrationally fears or hates transgendered people and is therefore transphobic.


This isn't giving Noodle the benefit of the doubt, this is bending yourself over backwards to defend her. You have intentionally omitted vast swathes of her argument to avoid the specific things that I said at the time and have said more recently I took issue with, and left only the things no-one ever said were transphobic.

Frankly, the claim Noodle never had the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. She did. She was not banned. No-one denied her the opportunity to defend herself. Multiple people tried to debate things with her, but she never actually wanted to. Now I'm sure the "Let's Give Noodle (but no-one else) The Benefit Of The Doubt" brigade will still insist that me suggesting there might be some prejudice to her argument was such an egregious insult that it justifies her refusal to engage in debate with anyone, but in actuality that's bullshit. Most of us here on this site who discuss politics have had to put up with have had our views attacked at some point, but you can't just insult everyone and refuse to engage in debate if you want that to change.
The fact is, this bizarre insistence we give Noodle, of all people, "the benefit of the doubt" (i.e. never criticise them) is just insulting. It's insulting to the right-wing users here who don't feel the need to go around insulting people in place of arguments and having tantrums whenever they're disagreed with, because it's acting like Noodle should be considered an average user of that type. It's insulting to those of us who actually tried to engage with Noodle at the time, because it's painting us as people who just insult people we don't like. And frankly it's insulting to the people Noodle was openly bigoted towards, because of the extent to which you're having to either ignore or dismiss genuinely prejudiced comments she made to make those of us who challenged them out to be the bad guys.


My benefit of the doubt is solely for the outrage on what happened in regards to the Hollywood sex scandals thread, in regards to her views on trans-gendered people it's pretty self explanatory and you did pick holes and refuted it just as you should as someone with differing views (however I'm not sure but I heard that discussion in particular may have angered you greatly). In regards to the trans-gendered thing I was simply saying that what she said in regards to the military isn't exactly transphobic, you may feel free to call what she thinks silly though and give as many counter arguments as you want. Anyway it also depends on how you define transphobic, but for me it didn't seem irrational hatred or fear as she demonstrating thinking it through and actually giving some points which could be discussed and rebutted and it wasn't just because "she said so" or because "tranny's are freaks". And feel free to demonstrate why you believe otherwise, what did she say in that thread that was trans-phobic?

My problem is with how that whole Kevin Spacey thing played out and also the labeling of her as Alt-Right. And I'm not saying that we should give Noodle-Fox the benefit doubt and screw everyone else if they make mistakes, I never said that and you should remember that.
  • 1

Image

Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!

skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!

Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
User avatar
DoglovingJim
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:07 am
Location: No block of land is going to tie Jim and his dogs down.
Show rep
Title: Manly Man

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Marcuse » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:34 pm

DoglovingJim wrote:
FunwithMrFudge wrote:I find it troubling that only certain people seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt.


We certainly are in agreement with the bolded text, shame Noodle-Fox didn't get any.


In what sense should Noodle have gotten any benefit of the doubt? For reference, I'm working to the following definition:

"a concession that a person or fact must be regarded as correct or justified, if the contrary has not been proven."

Which I found on Googling the term.

This is usually used when someone says something which, for example, only they could have been aware of and there's no way to prove either way that something is or is not the case. For example, if I do something wrong but claim I only had the best of intentions, one might afford me the benefit of the doubt about this because there is no empirical way to test my claim. It may also be used where a claim is uncontroversial or not worth our time, such as someone reporting on the weather.

Noodle's statement about a "gay male pedophile problem" is neither something which cannot be empirically proven nor is it so idiosyncratic to Noodle's psyche that we have to take her word for it. It is not an irrelevant claim we can dismiss as unimportant enough to not interrogate. Asking her for evidence for her statement is a reasonable and sensible thing to do, and I don't see why we should be assuming falsifiable statements are true when we have the opportunity to test that claim. The current affairs forum in particular has always been a place where claims are challenged and tested, regardless of their political alignment or ideology.

Yes, the majority of the forum does tend to share similar biases and assumptions, but we're not in the business of socially engineering the forum to make sure there's a balance between different viewpoints, especially since each person's take can be as different within a school of thought as some are without it. While I can accept that my post in particular was aggressive, as has been pointed out by other users, Noodle's reaction to it was unacceptable and broke our rules. She had every chance to present her evidence and make her case, but did not. She had every chance to walk away from the thread and say people were being awful, but she did not. I would absolutely have listened to her if she'd said the same things that have been raised to me subsequently, as much as I was deadly serious when I asked her to evidence her claims.

Throughout all of that, I don't know where assuming what she said was true without examining it would have been useful or respectful. I don't think anyone wants to think we believe what they say without thinking about it, purely to avoid upsetting them, and I don't think that it would have been appropriate for me to challenge her claim without expecting her to use the same tools all of us have at our disposal to prove her claim.
  • 14

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby IamNotCreepy » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:28 pm

I have been hesitant to post in here, but I figure I'll throw in my two cents.

I don't think any of the responses to Noodle's posts have been unreasonable or objectionable. She made several unsupported claims that were inflammatory in nature. When called out on it, she doubled-down, tried to deflect by calling those who disagreed with her unsupported claims as being pedophilia-apologists, and then insulted everyone using a homophobic slur.

If anything, I think the responses were on the tame side considering the things she was saying.

As to the alt-right label -- it's not an insult. It's a self-describing label that they gave to themselves. When someone espouses alt-right ideologies, uses alt-right language, and references alt-right memes, it is only fair to assume they are alt-right.

Since it is a self-imposed term, it is not an insult to label someone you think is alt-right as being alt-right, because the assumption is that they use this label on themselves. If someone not associated with the alt-right is insulted by being grouped with them, then maybe that person should not exhibit behavior that is indistinguishable from someone on the alt-right.
  • 13

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
TCS Admin
TCS Admin
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: Chasing after the Wind

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby cmsellers » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:18 pm

DoglovingJim wrote:Forgive me for my error, I assumed it was from the way you responded.

You see how easy it is to misunderstand what people meant?

DoglovingJim wrote:Fair enough, you view peoples frustration over CMSellers labeling of Noodle-Fox as crazy.

Uh, what? When did I say anything that could even be interpreted that way?

DoglovingJim wrote:I do attribute ill-intent on his claims that Noodle-Fox was such, giving people labels that they don't want is wrong no matter what. CMSellers interpreted the possibility of Noodle-Fox claiming that Hollywood had a gay pedophile problem (according to you guys) as meaning that she is Alt-Right and feels that liberals are pedophiles, yep that's not a reach. He could have made his thread without using Noodle-Fox, as has been agreed upon by many.

So much for benefit of the doubt, eh? I've explicitly said that I tried to not make it about NF and that I waited a week to post it because I couldn't see a way to get my point across without using her, and yet you're still attributing malice to me. You know, I always thought your hostility to me was in jest, but now I'm wondering if you haven't held a grudge against me all this time.

Speaking of benefit of the doubt, I hate to dredge this up but I feel like I need to:
Some time ago, I made a thread where I suggested that neonaticide by new parents is morally wrong but should not be a crime. Pretty much everybody leapt on me to suggest that I was saying that it's OK to kill babies; Marc even said that I wanted to make it legal for strangers to kill his kids which was very clearly not what I was saying. However when people suggest things that other people find offensive, those other people tend to have strong negative reactions. I don't think anyone except Kate gave me the benefit of the doubt on that thread.

On a somewhat less extreme note, I don't think we gave Marc the benefit of the doubt on Brexit, or Kate the benefit of the doubt when she first complained that Trump was making people behave irrationally. I think a lot of Democrats (and Crimson) failed to give Kate, Tess, and myself the benefit of the doubt when we criticized Clinton.

DoglovingJim wrote:And considering the whole thread was essentially a mockery of the Alt-Right by saying that they have an obsession with declaring their opponents pedophiles, backed up on the basis of a few anecdotes and one news-site. I don't think there is any intention for this forum to be welcoming to the Alt-Right, and it's not because of people like me who think that it's wrong to give people labels when they no longer are with us and therefore cannot call us out on our BS.

It wasn't "essentially a mockery of the alt-right." It was me saying "gee, the alt-right sure likes to do this. DeathclawPuncher says that this is because of projection, but I suspect a good many of the people doing this sincerely believe it, as a recent incident on TCS demonstrates." Note that I also started a thread on Trump derangement syndrome, even if it didn't get much traction. I believe that if something is problematic in political discourse, it merits being called out, period.

That said, we do sometimes mock people, and it's not only the alt-right we mock. We mock SJWs mercilessly, and it led to one user leaving 5ever after blanking all his posts. I started a thread mocking the California secession movement (back when I thought it was liberal kookiness and not a Russian troll project). However users who employ ridicule as their primary mode of political engagement have come in for repeated criticism, and rightly so.

People with different views are welcome on TCS, and if you're serious we'll usually try to hear you out. Which doesn't mean we're obligated not to say things that might make people uncomfortable. The answer to problematic speech isn't censorship; it's more speech.
  • 5

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

cron