Purgatory Hosting Standards

135

Comments

  • The issue of using a very broad brush when describing groups seems to me to be central here. However it gets used elsewhere, here on the Ship it helps to marginalise some posters and shut them up. (And I'm part of the comfortable majority here.)

    To take one example, @Ruth (using you because I know you can take it) I don't accept that every Trump voter is part of a Death Cult, no matter how often the wider media uses the phrase.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Istm that anyone who can’t play nicely in purgatory either has not Read the 10 commandments. (completely possible).

    Or is so caught up in keyboard warrior-ness that they are unable to Apply the 10 commandments.

    Purgatory is where debate happens, so if debate can’t happen because of repeated violations of those 10 commandments, I’m all for the hosts getting handy with their pitchforks.

    Hell or overboard as an outcome is their call.

    I wonder whether the 'warrior' style of posting, shouting over other people rather than engaging with them, has become more prevalent here because of other social media outlets where it is the norm.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    @Raptor Eye I d be interested to know from others + it seems to be subjective
    But
    I ve been here years and agree that there is more tolerance of what I as a parent would have termed “ not playing nicely”.

    Commandment Number One!


    Usually some poor host is required to explain Exactly what rule has been transgressed and on what occasion.

    Followed by lots of he said, she said, here and there...by which point all sane folk have yawned and left the room.



    I for one don’t use Twitter.

    But do think some folk here forget that they are not on other social media
  • The issue of using a very broad brush when describing groups seems to me to be central here. However it gets used elsewhere, here on the Ship it helps to marginalise some posters and shut them up. (And I'm part of the comfortable majority here.)

    To take one example, @Ruth (using you because I know you can take it) I don't accept that every Trump voter is part of a Death Cult, no matter how often the wider media uses the phrase.

    But using generalizations is a normal way of writing/talking. If I have to add riders to every general statement, I will drown in them. "The Romans were efficient in war, and cruel, of course, there were individual Roman soldiers who weren't". It's horrible prose, of course, there are paragraphs where this is untrue, of course, in those paragraphs, there are sections, where it is true..
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Exactly. Generalizations are not automatically bad. Saying that Americans are friendly or that Americans are individualistic doesn't mean all 330 million of us are friendly and individualistic; it describes us as a group, not as individuals. It's understood, or should be, that individuals within that group vary.

    Using the nation's capital as shorthand for the decisions and operations of its government isn't bad writing, it's a figure of speech called metonymy that is older than the language we're using.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Ah, metonymy. England is toughening its immigration laws. In that, England is clear shorthand for government. Purely descriptive. It doesn't imply that all English people favour tougher immigration laws.

    But how about Republicans favour inequity? Which is kind of where we came in. What is Republicans short for? Anyone who is a member of the political party? Current Republican Party policy? Republican representatives in Congress? Who does the generalisation refer to?

    I don't think you need to be all that smart to spot the difference.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    As to making comments about groups, lilbuddha's defence of this is somewhat missing that the problem is frequently with the choice of group in the first place.
    Let me give you a simpler example. The NRA membership have varying opinions about gun control. But as long as they send in their cheques, they support the leadership's decisions.

    No. As I've said on the other thread, you keep saying this as if it's some kind of self-evident truth. It's nonsense. For one thing, if you leave an organisation you abandon all hope of achieving any kind of leadership change.

    Treating membership of an organisation as tacit support for every decision that the leadership makes is just fundamentally bad. I mean, it's pretty much the same thinking that leads to Muslims being told they have to stand up and denounce everything that some nutjob ISIS person says or does. Fractionally better perhaps because it's the same organisation and 'leadership', but still fundamentally the same: asking people how they can be a Muslim and have the same religion as a suicide bomber. Asking a person how they can be in the church when the church condemns gays or abuses children or whatever. Expecting a Catholic to leave because of something a particular Pope said.

    If you don't accept that it's correct to treat all members of a religion to be in lockstep with each other, then it frankly makes no sense to do that with other groups. I mean, I seem to recall you suggesting people ought to leave an entire damn country in order to not be associated with that country's governance. As if that's the easiest thing in the world!

    Are you a Buddhist? I forget. But if you are, I certainly wouldn't go around assuming that any other Buddhist is like you. I don't see you as representative of your nationality, or your gender, or your ethnicity. You're just you.

    And leadership doesn't alter that. Leadership does not involve turning everyone into mindless drones. Nor does leadership mean nothing at all, but you try to turn it into meaning everything.

    You seem to believe that it's the simplest thing in the world for people to abandon whatever drew someone to a cause, a social group, a job, a belief system, a country, because of whatever decisions the current leadership made. Which is just bullshit. It's not simple. It's hard. You seem to have deliberately evaded my question in the other thread as to whether you have any practical experience of doing this, whether you hold your own attachments so lightly that you think that everyone else does too.

    Frankly, you seem to believe that I as a public servant need to abandon my job when the party I didn't vote for becomes my boss. A view that most public/civil servants around the world would find most troubling. But hey, because I work for the government I must be seen as endorsing all the policies, right? Never mind that in my particular job I actually spend a lot of my time discussing policies with people and testing them, trying to weed out ones that won't work or don't make sense. No, in your worldview, any policy that makes it out into public view is one that I must have endorsed. It's not possible to be part of the internal debate, it all has to be where you can see it and give your tick of approval or scowl of disapproval.

    You keep using this reasoning to justify the way you treat groups. And it just doesn't resemble the complexities of the way real live people navigate their way through the world or the complexities of their feelings about the groups they belong to.
    Muslim is not the same sort of grouping as Tory or Democrat. That you posit them as the same doesn't show an understanding of the point I am making.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Addendum: It's also worth noting, in relation to your 'simple' NRA example, that there is currently a great deal of disquiet within the NRA, centred on the way money is being used by leaders to enrich themselves.

    You seem to think the only solution to this is to withhold funds. Not to hold people to account as to how the funds are used going forward.
    There is no other way of holding them to account. The membership cannot vote on what the leadership does.
    One can be an activist within a political group, but if the group refuses to listen, then there is no point.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Ah, metonymy. England is toughening its immigration laws. In that, England is clear shorthand for government. Purely descriptive. It doesn't imply that all English people favour tougher immigration laws.

    But how about Republicans favour inequity? Which is kind of where we came in. What is Republicans short for? Anyone who is a member of the political party? Current Republican Party policy? Republican representatives in Congress? Who does the generalisation refer to?

    I don't think you need to be all that smart to spot the difference.

    I just find this pernickety.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    The issue of using a very broad brush when describing groups seems to me to be central here. However it gets used elsewhere, here on the Ship it helps to marginalise some posters and shut them up. (And I'm part of the comfortable majority here.)

    To take one example, @Ruth (using you because I know you can take it) I don't accept that every Trump voter is part of a Death Cult, no matter how often the wider media uses the phrase.
    Not every Trump voter is the same. But every Trump voter accepted the shite he spewed when voting for him. Whatever their position on dogs that bite, the bought the one that does.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Ah, metonymy. England is toughening its immigration laws. In that, England is clear shorthand for government. Purely descriptive. It doesn't imply that all English people favour tougher immigration laws.

    But how about Republicans favour inequity? Which is kind of where we came in. What is Republicans short for? Anyone who is a member of the political party? Current Republican Party policy? Republican representatives in Congress? Who does the generalisation refer to?

    I don't think you need to be all that smart to spot the difference.
    So in the first instance, you recognise how generalisation work but then forget it in the second? I'd argue that generalisations are more apt in the second group because it is one of choice.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Metonymy isn't generalization. In context, everyone knows that "Washington" refers to the US government, and is not a generalization about the incredibly diverse group of people that make up the population of the District of Columbia.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Metonymy isn't generalization. In context, everyone knows that "Washington" refers to the US government, and is not a generalization about the incredibly diverse group of people that make up the population of the District of Columbia.
    It operates on the same principle. Saying Republicans are fiscally conservative allows that some individual members might differs, but that is the dominant position of the group.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    The issue for Ship's business is not whether such statements are right, but whether Hosts should be expected to control them, for the greater good. My understanding about the inaccuracy and insulting nature of these statements is very much the same as orfeo's. The colloquial defence just doesn't cut it for me.

    (BTW I think Trumpism is well on its way to turning the GOP into a cult. All the more reason to recognise the possibility that there may be plenty in the GOP who don't like that at all, recognise the dangers. Their silence does not mean their assent. We can still criticise the complicity of party leaders and representatives without broadbrushing everyone.)

    So here is the issue for Hosting. Should we leave the criticism of such broadbrushing to Shipmates via debate in Purgatory. Or calling the broadbrushers to Hell? You have those options. We could do that. In many ways I'd prefer that.

    Or should Purgatory Hosts get a bit more proactive over such occurrences? Hosts are not nannies. I don't think any of you want us to be. But we could step in if we see serious discussion being derailed. This kind of broadbrushing can derail serious discussion. That's an option which is always open to us. One of my predecessors used to say 'play nicely' when doing that. It may be an option.

    I don't want a nanny. But when such a run of dismissive one-liners occurs, tarring a whole group with a negative, I'd be grateful if a host would step in long enough to clear his/her throat, name the problem, and suggest that people in general walk it back a bit.

    If this happened even half the times such runs occur (heck, even a quarter!), I'd feel a helluva lot better about being a minority poster on the Ship, and more inclined to slog on. Even if people's behavior didn't change--and we have good people here, I think it would in fact change with a few reminders.

    I just don't want to keep going it alone and unnoticed.

  • another thought--I'm not sure it would even look like discussion was being derailed. After all, imagine we were discussing a Republican party policy, we now have a run of "tar them all with one brush" anti-Republican statements, possibly even paired with actual points--and then discussion continues. I doubt it would attract attention if all the host is looking for is a derailment.
  • While reading some of the posts on both this thread and the Purgatory thread several have triggered a mental comment of "pot, kettle, black". I suspect I'm guilty of this too, but is there a lack of self-reflection as well as empathy? The pause to read back a post and reflect "how would I feel reading this?" if I am being addressed here?

    Various Shipmates have called broadbrushers to Hell, but it is not unknown for individuals involved to refuse to engage in Hell, listen, learn or change their style. I have been wondering whether to try again alongside this thread. But if both Hell and the posts on threads are ignored, I'm not sure what else the other Shipmates can do.

    Maybe more use of Hell with heavier hosting when it is obvious that certain posters are crossing or pushing lines from the Hell threads? As an aside, I've always hoped that a Hell thread was partly a signal to trigger more interest from admins. I suspect I have that impression as maybe it's how Erin operated, read the Hell threads and, if she spotted boundary pushing, fired a broadside across that poster's bows.

    This.

    I have usually refrained from calling people to Hell over this (not always) because when it happens, it's usually a short series of people, some of whom are quite decent human beings otherwise, and who are attempting to be witty, not malicious--and all of that doesn't add up to the fiery Hell-bound rage of a thousand burning suns, for me anyway. It turns to depression instead--and withdrawal, and sadness.

    And then there's the desire not to look like a special thin-skinned snowflake claiming severe injury--and this kind of injury is more like being tapped, a billion times, on the same damn spot. No big deal, unless you're on the receiving end of it.

    And THEN there's the guaranteed fact that the moment I open such a Hell thread, eleventy-six posters will show up to say "But Republicans/LCMS/conservatives/Americans/etc. REALLY ARE what we said they were!" and when I'm already in pain, I'm often not up for another voluntary go-round.

    Now all of this is on me, of course. I need to suck it up and try harder, and push through the depression, and ignore concerns about looking like a thin-skinned snowflake (urgh, what an image). Because I can't expect people to read my mind. And the posting pattern is so entrenched around here that it's unlikely to be noticed unless the ones most affected speak up, and keep speaking up, and so on. So most of this is going to be on me and those like me. Which sucks, but that's life.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Metonymy isn't generalization. In context, everyone knows that "Washington" refers to the US government, and is not a generalization about the incredibly diverse group of people that make up the population of the District of Columbia.
    It operates on the same principle. Saying Republicans are fiscally conservative allows that some individual members might differs, but that is the dominant position of the group.

    Although various Shipmates are saying that they don't hear it like that? And that it feels like an attack?

    There are two choices I can see at this point:
    1. Adapt posting style to avoid upsetting other Shipmates - by clarifying groups referred to rather than making sweeping generalisations;
    2. Continue posting as normal in the knowledge, pointed out here, repeatedly, that various Shipmates are upset by this style
  • Saying "Republicans are fiscally conservative" is not the same thing as saying "Republicans are baby killers." Grammatically they may be similar, but emotionally they are way, way far apart. I can take your (ahem) accusation of fiscal conservative-ness and laugh it off, if it is not in fact applicable to me; the other will have me frothing at the mouth.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Ruth wrote: »
    Exactly. Generalizations are not automatically bad. Saying that Americans are friendly or that Americans are individualistic doesn't mean all 330 million of us are friendly and individualistic; it describes us as a group, not as individuals. It's understood, or should be, that individuals within that group vary.

    Well yes, but there is a difference between a generalisation that is insulting and a generalisation that is positive or neutral.

    'Americans are friendly and individualistic' might be inaccurate when applied to Sam Smith of Grand Island, Nebraska, who isn't very friendly or individualistic, but it isn't insulting him.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    So here is the issue for Hosting. Should we leave the criticism of such broadbrushing to Shipmates via debate in Purgatory. Or calling the broadbrushers to Hell? You have those options. We could do that. In many ways I'd prefer that.

    It occurs to me that a limitation of this approach for the truly thick-skinned is that nobody is obliged to enagage in a Hell thread, even if the thread is about them.
    Or should Purgatory Hosts get a bit more proactive over such occurrences? Hosts are not nannies. I don't think any of you want us to be. But we could step in if we see serious discussion being derailed. This kind of broadbrushing can derail serious discussion. That's an option which is always open to us. One of my predecessors used to say 'play nicely' when doing that. It may be an option.

    I'm still trying to think this through, but ISTM that not every generalization is necessarily problematic, and there could be discussions where they're practically essential for the discussion to happen at all. But a category of posting habits that are discouraged, such that they can result in Hostly intervention, even if they are not absolutely banned, may be useful.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    And then there's the desire not to look like a special thin-skinned snowflake claiming severe injury--and this kind of injury is more like being tapped, a billion times, on the same damn spot. No big deal, unless you're on the receiving end of it.

    I'll just reiterate as an actual data point rather than generalities -- the only person I've seen openly declaring they were leaving recently was a transwoman, and from the tenor of the rest of that particular thread very few people seemed to be particularly phased by it or seem to think it was a big issue.
    And THEN there's the guaranteed fact that the moment I open such a Hell thread, eleventy-six posters will show up to say "But Republicans/LCMS/conservatives/Americans/etc. REALLY ARE what we said they were!" and when I'm already in pain, I'm
    often not up for another voluntary go-round.

    Forgive me, but the goals of Hell aside, ITSM I've rarely seen a Hell thread that left the OP with less pain than they were in when they started it.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Addendum: It's also worth noting, in relation to your 'simple' NRA example, that there is currently a great deal of disquiet within the NRA, centred on the way money is being used by leaders to enrich themselves.

    You seem to think the only solution to this is to withhold funds. Not to hold people to account as to how the funds are used going forward.
    There is no other way of holding them to account. The membership cannot vote on what the leadership does.
    One can be an activist within a political group, but if the group refuses to listen, then there is no point.

    I think NRA membership is only weakly analogous to supporting a political party. Not being part of a lobby group is the normal default state of affairs. Not voting is morally problematic. This means there is a 'lesser of two evils' consideration when you decide how to vote that doesn't really apply when you're deciding whether or not to join a lobby group.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate

    And THEN there's the guaranteed fact that the moment I open such a Hell thread, eleventy-six posters will show up to say "But Republicans/LCMS/conservatives/Americans/etc. REALLY ARE what we said they were!" and when I'm already in pain, I'm
    often not up for another voluntary go-round.

    Forgive me, but the goals of Hell aside, ITSM I've rarely seen a Hell thread that left the OP with less pain than they were in when they started it.

    Which is another limitation of using Hell to discourage bad behaviour. There's been at least one occasion when I was desperately tempted to call someone to Hell but refrained from doing so for that reason.

  • Marsupial wrote: »
    Which is another limitation of using Hell to discourage bad behaviour. There's been at least one occasion when I was desperately tempted to call someone to Hell but refrained from doing so for that reason.

    I'm obviously concerned about this. Hell is there to release pressure from other boards, but I also appreciate that there is a certain amount of 'target drawing' involved in making that Hell call. Hell only works if people feel able to make that call.

    If it's not too difficult, can you explain further?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Metonymy isn't generalization. In context, everyone knows that "Washington" refers to the US government, and is not a generalization about the incredibly diverse group of people that make up the population of the District of Columbia.
    It operates on the same principle. Saying Republicans are fiscally conservative allows that some individual members might differs, but that is the dominant position of the group.

    Although various Shipmates are saying that they don't hear it like that? And that it feels like an attack?
    Anything can feel like an attack and nearly everything anyone can say will feel like that to somebody. The question is whether the feeling is reasonable.
    Various Shipmates agree with me that generalisations are not inherently personal attacks. So where does that leave us?
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Which is another limitation of using Hell to discourage bad behaviour. There's been at least one occasion when I was desperately tempted to call someone to Hell but refrained from doing so for that reason.

    I'm obviously concerned about this. Hell is there to release pressure from other boards, but I also appreciate that there is a certain amount of 'target drawing' involved in making that Hell call. Hell only works if people feel able to make that call.

    If it's not too difficult, can you explain further?

    I’ll PM you when I get a moment. Not something of concern right now.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Exactly. Generalizations are not automatically bad. Saying that Americans are friendly or that Americans are individualistic doesn't mean all 330 million of us are friendly and individualistic; it describes us as a group, not as individuals. It's understood, or should be, that individuals within that group vary.

    Well yes, but there is a difference between a generalisation that is insulting and a generalisation that is positive or neutral.
    But they are not. They are accurate or not, positive is easier to take, but it doesn't change that they are the same.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Addendum: It's also worth noting, in relation to your 'simple' NRA example, that there is currently a great deal of disquiet within the NRA, centred on the way money is being used by leaders to enrich themselves.

    You seem to think the only solution to this is to withhold funds. Not to hold people to account as to how the funds are used going forward.
    There is no other way of holding them to account. The membership cannot vote on what the leadership does.
    One can be an activist within a political group, but if the group refuses to listen, then there is no point.

    I think NRA membership is only weakly analogous to supporting a political party. Not being part of a lobby group is the normal default state of affairs. Not voting is morally problematic. This means there is a 'lesser of two evils' consideration when you decide how to vote that doesn't really apply when you're deciding whether or not to join a lobby group.
    There are more than two choices, even in the US. The other choices face the problem of lesser influence, it is true. And lesser of two evils doesn't excuse the lesser evil. The reason we have a lesser evil to choose from instead of a good is that we do not make the effort to change the choices. Yes, it is difficult and no, it might not work. But if we do not work for change, we are responsible for what we settle on.
  • But this is bullshit. You hold us personally responsible for the actions of the group with which we are affiliated, you claim the reason no positively good choice exists is because we didn't work hard enough (and how the fuck do you know?), and until the moment that perfect choice arrives, you hold us responsible for the lesser evils we are forced into.

    Even God himself is not this harsh.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    We'll, there isn't going to be any agreement here on the need for Hosting remedies or what they might be. But thanks for some illuminating posts. I'm going to consult with H&A about possible and practical remedial action or changed guidance.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    But this is bullshit. You hold us personally responsible for the actions of the group with which we are affiliated, you claim the reason no positively good choice exists is because we didn't work hard enough (and how the fuck do you know?), and until the moment that perfect choice arrives, you hold us responsible for the lesser evils we are forced into.

    Even God himself is not this harsh.

    In some theologies, God is actually this harsh. Through Adam all have sinned!

    More seriously: I don't hold individuals personally responsible for the actions taken by groups they belong to or by the leadership of such groups. But I do think we are complicit in things our groups do. As an American I am complicit in our wars, our treatment of immigrants at the southern border, our acceptance of homelessness, etc etc etc. I do act in some ways to protest and work against these things, but I don't do all I could do.

    As a member of a church, I was complicit when the vestry doubled the rent on church-owned apartments, and when it became clear that they weren't even willing to have a conversation about this, I stopped contributing to the church (I had already stopped attending).

    I don't hold my mother personally responsible for the truly evil policies of the Republican party. But she's complicit. When they count Republicans in California, she numbers among them. She says the Republican party changes, not her, and she's right - but she's still signed up for the party that over 20 years ago wanted to deny all education in California to children brought here illegally by their parents.
  • Marsupial wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Which is another limitation of using Hell to discourage bad behaviour. There's been at least one occasion when I was desperately tempted to call someone to Hell but refrained from doing so for that reason.

    I'm obviously concerned about this. Hell is there to release pressure from other boards, but I also appreciate that there is a certain amount of 'target drawing' involved in making that Hell call. Hell only works if people feel able to make that call.

    If it's not too difficult, can you explain further?

    I’ll PM you when I get a moment. Not something of concern right now.

    Thank you.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Muslim is not the same sort of grouping as Tory or Democrat. That you posit them as the same doesn't show an understanding of the point I am making.

    Hmm. People are born into it. It's entirely possible to change your beliefs, but a lot of people blindly stick with the tribe they grew up with without considering the alternatives. Sounds a bit like politics to me. :naughty:
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Well yes, but there is a difference between a generalisation that is insulting and a generalisation that is positive or neutral.
    But they are not. They are accurate or not, positive is easier to take, but it doesn't change that they are the same.

    But this is just equivocating. "Same" in what way? Same as regards their sheer logical structure. Sure. But real life, and real communication, isn't that mathematical. Something that's insulting is not "the same" as something that is not, in a way that is very, very important: it's more threatening, it's more negative, it's more nasty. And that's not nothing, as you seem to think.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    But using generalizations is a normal way of writing/talking.

    I think there are quite enough examples from history of people eventually realising, and arguing, that the fact that something is common does not mean it is good. Or best practice. Or not in need of being done rather more judiciously.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited May 2020
    Thanks to mousethief and oreo. You encapsulate my unease.

    "Republicans are shit because they are Republicans." Some folks are arguing here that they have the right to use generalities which imply that.

    "Black people are shit because they are black".

    That will get you banned here as a jerk. Because it is an unacceptable and deeply offensive racist generalisation under Commandment 1.

    "Paedophiles are shit because they are paedophiles".

    That may illustrate what is at the heart of critical labelling.

    The label of paedophile is automatically associated with sexually abusive behaviour. A behaviour which is correctly universally condemned. Now it is true that some paedophiles realise and learn that their innate desires are pathological and the actions they lead to are very harmful. They remain with their innate tendencies but because they now see them as wrong they seek to control their own behaviour. Some succeed. There is debate about how many go down that road. The evidence is that some do. They do not re-offend.

    So the statement "Paedophilia is shit behaviour" is more accurate. So is "paedophilia is a shit sexual orientation".

    And that gets to the heart of my worries about labelling. I think it is absolutely right to have freedom to criticise characteristics, beliefs and behaviour which we see as wrong, destructive, dangerous. And I think it is well in order also the point to the prevalence of those characteristics, beliefs and behaviours within groups.

    But none of that gives us the right to assume they apply universally, in the same way, and to the same degree, to individuals within those groups.

    I think this debate has probably demonstrated the futility of looking for rules based controls. But maybe there has been some learning? Particularly about the need to be careful in the use of generalities. It is possible to say accurately and distinctly what really bothers us without broadbrushing individuals. That fosters serious debate. Labelling doesn't.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    But none of that gives us the right to assume they apply universally, in the same way, and to the same degree, to individuals within those groups.

    It’s not arisen yet in this thread, but the way people sometimes talk about gender in this way doesn’t help. “Women” are A, “Men” are B. “Men” is often used as a shorthand for the patriarchy or the actions of some men, but it appears to lump all men into the same category. And the way some males talk offhandedly about women is prejudiced and dismissive.

    I appreciate that it’s a shorthand in conversation, but in my experience, it can generate more heat than light, and it’s really such a small amount of effort to insert the word “some” in front of a noun - if one is genuinely interested in generating more light than heat.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

    We kind of are. I mean, a statement of the type 'Tories are X' may be intended to describe the overall effects of Tory behaviour in the aggregate, but if an actual Tory is posting, obviously they are going to take it as being about them as an individual, because apart from anything else, the expectation is that they will either defend Toryism or repent in sackcloth and ashes in the face of their Shipmates' rhetorical brilliance.
  • BabyWombatBabyWombat Shipmate
    I have been in many face-to-face discussion groups, including advocates for many sides of an issue. They included Prayer Book revision, ordination of women, inclusion of Gay and Transgender persons… the list could go on and on. But in each and every one of those groups basic ground rules were that language be civil, not incendiary, an honest expression of opinion without threat or coercion, and spoken without threat, which included no shouting, just speaking.

    The moderator job was a challenge I am sure! But holding the group to respectful discourse seemed the only way to move forward. It let us hear each other and not prepare a return salvo. It may not have ever concluded with agreement, but still we were heard. Could that not work here? Yes, perhaps more work for Hosts, but if we are here to advocate and debate, I think such verbal boundaries are necessary. Without that I fear we turn too often into shouting and being offensive.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    "Republicans are shit because they are Republicans." Some folks are arguing here that they have the right to use generalities which imply that.

    Who? Please provide a link to these comments.
    And that gets to the heart of my worries about labelling. I think it is absolutely right to have freedom to criticise characteristics, beliefs and behaviour which we see as wrong, destructive, dangerous. And I think it is well in order also the point to the prevalence of those characteristics, beliefs and behaviours within groups.

    But none of that gives us the right to assume they apply universally, in the same way, and to the same degree, to individuals within those groups.

    Who assumes this? It is the very nature of a generalization that it is understood, or should be, that it does not apply to every individual within the group.
    I think this debate has probably demonstrated the futility of looking for rules based controls. But maybe there has been some learning? Particularly about the need to be careful in the use of generalities. It is possible to say accurately and distinctly what really bothers us without broadbrushing individuals. That fosters serious debate. Labelling doesn't.

    Some generalizations are too broad or are unfair. You recently said you'd rather be in Norwich right now than anywhere in the US, implying that there's pretty much nowhere in the US that isn't worse off than Norwich. I cited data to show that this generalization is unjustified, and you acknowledged that. And that's what I think should happen when someone thinks a generalization has gone too far or is unjustified.

    But a generalization does not have to be universally true to be justified. You could have said you'd rather be in Norwich than anywhere in New York City, and I think the implication that Norwich is overall safer than NYC is fine, despite the likelihood that there are some rich people in Manhattan holed up in palatial apartments who have had less contact with infection than the average person in Norwich.
  • BabyWombat wrote: »
    I have been in many face-to-face discussion groups, including advocates for many sides of an issue. They included Prayer Book revision, ordination of women, inclusion of Gay and Transgender persons… the list could go on and on. But in each and every one of those groups basic ground rules were that language be civil, not incendiary, an honest expression of opinion without threat or coercion, and spoken without threat, which included no shouting, just speaking.

    The moderator job was a challenge I am sure! But holding the group to respectful discourse seemed the only way to move forward. It let us hear each other and not prepare a return salvo. It may not have ever concluded with agreement, but still we were heard. Could that not work here? Yes, perhaps more work for Hosts, but if we are here to advocate and debate, I think such verbal boundaries are necessary. Without that I fear we turn too often into shouting and being offensive.

    That sounds like a regulatory hell. Am I supposed to write posts, while avoiding generalizations, return salvos, offending someone? And then the hosts would rule on my propriety? I'm not sure why anyone would come here.
  • You could ban non-Christians.
  • You could ban non-Christians.
    I know it was said in jest ... but just to be absolutely clear: We will not be banning anyone based on their identification with any particular groups; be that religious affiliation, political party membership or anything else.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    On reflection, I didn't like my own generalisation Ruth because it was unfair and unsoundly based. I didn't defend my right to make it.

    Not did I think you were wrong in being pissed off by it!

    So I agree that some generalisations are too broad and unfair. And it is not wrong to be pissed off by them. And I've concluded that in practice the remedies are best left to Shipmates.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

    We kind of are. I mean, a statement of the type 'Tories are X' may be intended to describe the overall effects of Tory behaviour in the aggregate, but if an actual Tory is posting, obviously they are going to take it as being about them as an individual, because apart from anything else, the expectation is that they will either defend Toryism or repent in sackcloth and ashes in the face of their Shipmates' rhetorical brilliance.
    If a Tory is aprt of the argument, then why the hell wouldn't they defend the position or state their disagreement with it? Why are they are part of the discussion if they aren't discussing?

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    BabyWombat wrote: »
    I have been in many face-to-face discussion groups, including advocates for many sides of an issue. They included Prayer Book revision, ordination of women, inclusion of Gay and Transgender persons… the list could go on and on. But in each and every one of those groups basic ground rules were that language be civil, not incendiary, an honest expression of opinion without threat or coercion, and spoken without threat, which included no shouting, just speaking.

    The moderator job was a challenge I am sure! But holding the group to respectful discourse seemed the only way to move forward. It let us hear each other and not prepare a return salvo. It may not have ever concluded with agreement, but still we were heard. Could that not work here? Yes, perhaps more work for Hosts, but if we are here to advocate and debate, I think such verbal boundaries are necessary. Without that I fear we turn too often into shouting and being offensive.
    "Civil" discussion can be quite nasty. Many people use a "civil" framing to say very mean things.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    But this is bullshit. You hold us personally responsible for the actions of the group with which we are affiliated, you claim the reason no positively good choice exists is because we didn't work hard enough (and how the fuck do you know?), and until the moment that perfect choice arrives, you hold us responsible for the lesser evils we are forced into.

    Even God himself is not this harsh.
    What Ruth said here.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

    We kind of are. I mean, a statement of the type 'Tories are X' may be intended to describe the overall effects of Tory behaviour in the aggregate, but if an actual Tory is posting, obviously they are going to take it as being about them as an individual, because apart from anything else, the expectation is that they will either defend Toryism or repent in sackcloth and ashes in the face of their Shipmates' rhetorical brilliance.
    If a Tory is aprt of the argument, then why the hell wouldn't they defend the position or state their disagreement with it? Why are they are part of the discussion if they aren't discussing?

    Possibly because the discussion was on something other than the general evil tendencies of Tories (for example, a single policy, the odds in an upcoming election, anything, really) and then some idiot Shipmate decided to toss in a drive-by nasty generalizaton?

    We aren't bound to defend every-freaking-thing anybody ever says anywhere anytime in a discussion thread. It's perfectly fine to stick to the particular point you're interested in, and let the rest go by.

    Not that it's easy to let nasty generalizations go by. We're human, too.
Sign In or Register to comment.