INTPf Policy Change

[The Gopher]

https://www.perspectiveapi.com/#/

Spoiler

Introducing Perspective

Perspective is an API that makes it easier to host better conversations. The API uses machine learning models to score the perceived impact a comment might have on a conversation. Developers and publishers can use this score to give realtime feedback to commenters or help moderators do their job, or allow readers to more easily find relevant information, as illustrated in two experiments below. We’ll be releasing more machine learning models later in the year, but our first model identifies whether a comment could be perceived as “toxic" to a discussion.

OMG PLEASE I TAKE IT ALL BACK IMPLEMENT THIS RAGNAR!

 

[Hadoblado]

Look at the CoC. I get to ban you if I think you're a nuisance. I could already punish people for attacking the origin, language, race, religion, political worldview or gender of others.

It's later extrapolated that being a 'nuisance' could mean... basically anything.

Spoiler

The present list has therefore been compiled to banish this plague forevermore.


In Discussion:

Strawmanning and ad-hominem-ing
Pettiness, nitpicking and hairsplitting
Condescension, dismissal and hubris

In General Behaviour:

Passive agression
Harassing forum members
Endless obsession with a specific subject
Close-minded dogmatism and proselytising
Incapacity to spell, use punctuation, paragraphs, or write coherent sentences

In Threads & Posts:

High-frequency of low-substance posting
Me-too threads/posts without substance
Necroing threads frivolously
Constant adolescent relationship drama
Attention whoring threads
Abusing image memes
Useless or unfunny one-liners
Largely incoherent posts of excessive length
Spilling out arguments and personal feuds over unrelated threads

Towards Moderators:

Deceitfulness and duplicitousness
Free-speech whining about moderation
Obstinate, ill-informed defense of the damned
Dragging mods into personal feuds
Dissing, pestering or otherwise hampering mods

Seriously, mods are technically way more powerful than you'd infer from our actions. Needlessly powerful IMO. I could ban you all for 'free speech whining about moderation'. Not really - because the pirates code CoC is more of a guideline.

If we're taking an update to the CoC to mean that mods are now freely able to exercise their prejudice, then this was already the case. But they don't. Why? Because we gain nothing from doing our job pettily.

"But Hado, if this isn't an expansion of mod power, what is it?" I hear you begrudgingly chirp.

Well my buxom lad, it's more an expression of our intention. We're going to be doing what we always did, but now we'll be paying attention to posts that lack substance while alienating our members.

You may not tell from my tone, but I'm extremely enthusiastic about this change. IMO this is the most interesting thing to happen to the forum in a long while. But time will tell. Maybe it's a mistake. We'll see.

 

[The Gopher]

"Hado says a bunch of stuff go read his post you don't need to see it here again."

Look nobody is saying you can't do all that. You could ban everyone you dislike if you wanted to and you always have been able to since I've ever been here. I just don't want it to be socially acceptable for that to happen. If it's more of a hassle for you to ban someone than not ban them you won't do it.

I'm not sure if that counts as hampering mods or not.

Also unfunny one liners? That's like way too subjective. I would go further but I might end up nitpicking. Oh dear now I'm being passive aggressive.

Unrelated note. I thought I was pretty self aware but at least from this conversation I've realised where part of my free speech whining comes from.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

I'm confused. What happened? Someone made fun of trannies? Or were they spreading misinformation? Both? Why? Are they doing it on purpose or are they just stupid? If they're just stupid shouldn't we let them be? Or do we discriminate against the intellectually unfortunate here?

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, let's bring the tone down to a dull roar again please.

Has RB demonstrated that it's biological? No.

Does he need to? No. Not unless it's offensive to someone affected.

That's the entire point of this change. The onus is on the derogatory party to evidence their criticisms. So if RB could please stop getting baited, and the rest of you stop splitting hairs that are irrelevant to this policy, that'd be great.

Focus ppl.

 

[Grayman]

Okay, let's bring the tone down to a dull roar again please.

Has RB demonstrated that it's biological? No.

Does he need to? No. Not unless it's offensive to someone affected.

Sure, for a less volatile example, if you say god isnt real do you have to provide evidencethat it isn't because it offended a christian? If so how do you show evidence that something does not exist? You can only provide evidence that their evidence, that he exista, is wrong which requires 'them' to show evidence.

The onus of evidence has to be on the person claiming something to exist not the skeptic.

 

[Hadoblado]

There is a difference between making a claim about what someone believes, and making a claim about someone.

For example, you could say that the Earth is round, or you could say that all flat-earthers are low-IQ for believing otherwise. If for whatever reason we had flat-earthers here who were offended, I would not moderate the first claim at all, but I would demand evidence for the IQ claim.

Likewise I would not moderate someone for saying god does or does not exist (stating god does exist should be equally 'offensive' to an atheist right?). But if someone were to say "all priests are pedophiles", or "all atheists are morally bankrupt", I'd probably ask for evidence before allowing them to continue (probably a warning as well, or temp ban if they're a repeat offender).

It's not about monitoring disagreements. It's about stopping the constant misrepresentation of people without evidence. Is that clearer?

 

[Haim]

Re: IQ, race, and immigration [split from Outrage]

It's fine to have this conversation, but if people feel derogated by the claims you're making I'll need sources for those claims if you want to continue.

This is ridiculous, not every thing in realty has proofs or can realisticly have proof, only a fool need outside source proof when straight looking at realty it is clear. We are not here for things that have proof, you know you ask for impossible things I feel derogated because of you, not that you care or should care.You can not massure intelligence with 1d number, but the brain is hyper d so it can, and it bloody obvious by life experience that people of some races tend(not are) to be less smart.
With that said I understand that that people may claim to judge people only by race or that some races are inferior and therefore should be mistreated that will be wrong.saying that a rich son of a street cleaner is unlikely to be the next Nobel prize winner is fine, if some forum member is a street cleaner and would be insulted by realty so be it, I should not care as long I am not outright false or a dick.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: IQ, race, and immigration [split from Outrage]

I said sources Haim, not proof. Far from impossible.

 

[QuickTwist]

Re: IQ, race, and immigration [split from Outrage]

I said sources Haim, not proof. Far from impossible.

You realize the way you worded that makes it seem like people can't have their own ideas about things right? Like the rule pretty much discourages creative thinking...

 

[redbaron]

Re: IQ, race, and immigration [split from Outrage]

Well no it doesn't, and least of all on this topic.

I mean if your idea is that *insert race here* is inherently inferior in some way and you have literally no evidence for it whatsoever, then it stands to reason that maybe you wouldn't go around saying that sort of thing unless you DID find some evidence.

Besides, racism is surely one of the LEAST creative things ever if not literally the epitome of a lack of imagination and creativity.

"These people are on the surface different, I bet they have other differences too!"

I really can't see a way of arguing a race is inherently inferior that's somehow "creative".

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: IQ, race, and immigration [split from Outrage]

You want to think creatively about race? In what way?

Edit: People can have their own ideas about anything. We can't/shouldn't/won't police thoughts. But if you want to use this platform for speculative debasement of other, you need to temper that creativity with reality.

It's too easy for someone to hammer on creatively about why X is worse, without establishing that X is in fact worse, or while ignoring an already existent and evidenced explanation for why it's worse. Scientists have put hundreds of thousands of hours into figuring out how to measure this stuff, it seems oddly convenient how so many people think their personal experience trumps that.

 

[QuickTwist]

Re: IQ, race, and immigration [split from Outrage]

Well no it doesn't, and least of all on this topic.

I mean if your idea is that *insert race here* is inherently inferior in some way and you have literally no evidence for it whatsoever, then it stands to reason that maybe you wouldn't go around saying that sort of thing unless you DID find some evidence.

Besides, racism is surely one of the LEAST creative things ever if not literally the epitome of a lack of imagination and creativity.

"These people are on the surface different, I bet they have other differences too!"

I really can't see a way of arguing a race is inherently inferior that's somehow "creative".

Who said I was talking about race?

 

[Haim]

Re: IQ, race, and immigration [split from Outrage]

I said sources Haim, not proof. Far from impossible.

And what do you expect to see in the "sources", other than proof, arguments and/or other sources?
Am I suppose to trust this sources?, well lets ask google as I always does.

Spoiler

You will expect some noteworthy inventors, the non "white" inventors, but maybe one with math related background, either did not really invent anything new or have insignificent inventions.
If you would search the same thing in other language you will get what you want.
This is the Hebrew version, note that Google for some reason removed the direct translation in Hebrew so I had to search USA inventors instead

Spoiler

This is the result I got on 28/8/2017, with the direct translation of american inventors
https://imgur.com/4shYtP5

Now why google actually needed to nitpick them from the list?It seem like a racist made the English version of this list, but they manged to have worse result.

Is this the source you want?

 

[Hadoblado]

@QT
The topic was on race, if people failed to figure out that you were talking about something other than race in a thread about race when you didn't specify, that's on you. I moved derail to a better location.

@Haim
I haven't even asked people for sources yet. I said that if people feel derogated then I will start asking for sources. That said, no a goodle image search is not going to cut it. Google's search algorithm does not directly anything except googles practices.

In the event that I did ask for evidence (I'm not, yet):
If you want to establish that people of a particular ethnicity have lower IQ on average, you need a scientific paper that supports that conclusion. Why? Well IQ gaps are already pretty well established, but there's still questions of how large those gaps are, and what those gaps are due to. Basically you're denying people the option of responding to an attack against them.

 

[QuickTwist]

That's fine and all, but Haim's post was completely on topic. I think you jumped the gun here.

 

[Hadoblado]

Haim's talking about the policy using race as an example.

Again, when I split threads it's not a punishment.

 

[redbaron]

Hado said IF - because this topic has been done here before, and it got ugly. He didn't tell Haim to provide sources, he said _IF_. To stop it getting ugly again.

Relax buddy. Hado's not jumping any guns.

 

[Haim]

@QT
@Haim
I haven't even asked people for sources yet. I said that if people feel derogated then I will start asking for sources. That said, no a goodle image search is not going to cut it. Google's search algorithm does not directly anything except googles practices.

In the event that I did ask for evidence (I'm not, yet):
If you want to establish that people of a particular ethnicity have lower IQ on average, you need a scientific paper that supports that conclusion. Why? Well IQ gaps are already pretty well established, but there's still questions of how large those gaps are, and what those gaps are due to. Basically you're denying people the option of responding to an attack against them.

What I wanted to claim is how much manipulation there is on this subject, if Google had to change its search result you will find it hard to find objective source for that.
Intelligence is not a thing you could find good scientific paper as you can not measure it well, you could find statistical based research pseudo science such as IQ.
"If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid" this is why IQ does not help to determine intelligence, there are endless amount of abilities you can measure a simple test will not do, you need a device capable of taking huge amount of variables, a one with deep understanding of people(when I was a teenager I regarded people with extroverted feelings as stupid :P) , today only the human mind is capable of such judgment, only the huge mind can process the huge amount of data needed to understand people.
The data you insert to IQ test is extremely small, to make good judgment you need much bigger data on the person, no one done AI that can make good judgment on that and even if they did it will " Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb" as a human trained it.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hado said IF - because this topic has been done here before, and it got ugly. He didn't tell Haim to provide sources, he said _IF_. To stop it getting ugly again.

Relax buddy. Hado's not jumping any guns.

How is changing where the post is located supposed to change that? Unless you think putting it in a different thread is supposed to change the motive of the poster for some reason.

 

[Hadoblado]

@QT and RB
Looks like a bit of a misunderstanding. QT thought I was quick to jump the gun on splitting the thread. RB thought QT meant jumping the gun with making people claim sources.

@Haim
Sorry dude but I'm starting to find it difficult to take you seriously. You dismiss IQ because it's pseudoscience (hint: it's not, though lay conceptions of it often are) then think it's better to just decide how smart a skin colour is based on personal anecdote? Feels like this is the sort of "creativity" that's worth stifling ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

[Haim]

@QT and RB
@Haim
Sorry dude but I'm starting to find it difficult to take you seriously. You dismiss IQ because it's pseudoscience (hint: it's not, though lay conceptions of it often are) then think it's better to just decide how smart a skin colour is based on personal anecdote? Feels like this is the sort of "creativity" that's worth stifling ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I am saying it is a better tool as statistical based research tend to be misleading, your criteria for intelligence and the way you measure it are critical, what IQ wants to test is very narrow and not very useful for this discussion.
We should argue with arguments such as "how smart a skin colour", which I will agree to test this be science and even willing to paint my skin even more brown to see if I become dumber.
While humans do have bias, we are capable of deep judgment of things we don't have other tools to test, for example we can judge the effectiveness of a person action, we can judge person creativity, "EQ".

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing anymore.

Statistics and research aren't infallible. That's why I'd request people post them, so that we can assess the source of the position rather than hearsay. Nobody is saying that by posting some statistics to give shape to your arguments, you're immediately promoted to unquestionable authority.

It'd just be nice if when someone says something both meaningful and nasty, and want to act like they're too real for the rest of us, they'd put in a few minutes effort evidencing their thoughts to set them apart from every other asshole with an opinion. Not all opinions are equal. Some mirror reality and some don't. This isn't a platform for people to spew unevidenced hate.

 

[Black Rose]

This isn't a platform for people to spew unevidenced hate.

So far the topic was about gender and now it is about race. Unless the comment was deleted from this form I saw no one say trans people were "fucked up" like RedBaron implies happened here on the forum. I saw no one degrade any race as far I have seen happen here on the forum (unless the posts were deleted). If someone has a theory on race or gender and long as it is not obviously intended to be hateful I think it should be allowed but so far no one has pointed out any such bigotry or hatred but simply implied that such denigration has occurred. For example: was what QuickTwist said about how trans people are trans because of a psychological reason really an expression of hatred. Because if it was it should have been removed, like all other hateful content. RedBaron is the only one that says people on the forum are calling trans people "fuck up". And now it turns to race where implied accusations are made that some people hate other races but no one is saying who they are.

Please tell me who is the one that commented that trans people were "fucked up". Whos comment got deleted that was transphobic?

Whos racist comment got deleted that RedBaron saw for Red Baron to imply a racist commenter exists? (same on the trans comments)

 

[Hadoblado]

@AK
The 'fucked up' comment happened on INTPc. It was quoted here by washti, but we were already aware of it. It just happened to coincide with QT's less than charitable thoughts on the transgendered here.

There is not censorship of the race conversation occurring currently. As far as I'm aware nobody has been called a racist. I'm not sure what post by RB you're referring to. The bit you quote is in justification of a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical scenario where someone wants to hypothetically piss all over the hypothetical faces of another hypothetical race without hypothetical evidence.

Maybe I should have put trigger warnings up

 

[Black Rose]

There is not censorship of the race conversation occurring currently. As far as I'm aware nobody has been called a racist.

You realize the way you worded that makes it seem like people can't have their own ideas about things right? Like the rule pretty much discourages creative thinking...

RB turned what QT said about how you should be allowed have your own ideas and that the standard for research was too high,

into this:

I really can't see a way of arguing a race is inherently inferior that's somehow "creative".

So being creative in your thinking in any way automatical makes it an accusation of inferiority on a race.

I do not see how that follows. First, you do not need to think a race is inferior to think about the qualities of a race. And Second being able to research race does not mean you cannot come up with your own ideas on the subject.

1. Having your own ideas is not racist.
2. Your Level of Reasearch should not disqualify you from having discussions on different subjects.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay so it seems like things that are not actually an issue are taking up a disproportionate proportion of the thought space here.

In a thread about race and immigration, this policy was mentioned. QT responded to one of my comments here:

I said sources Haim, not proof. Far from impossible.

With this:

You realize the way you worded that makes it seem like people can't have their own ideas about things right? Like the rule pretty much discourages creative thinking...

To which RB responded:

Well no it doesn't, and least of all on this topic.

I mean if your idea is that *insert race here* is inherently inferior in some way and you have literally no evidence for it whatsoever, then it stands to reason that maybe you wouldn't go around saying that sort of thing unless you DID find some evidence.

Besides, racism is surely one of the LEAST creative things ever if not literally the epitome of a lack of imagination and creativity.

"These people are on the surface different, I bet they have other differences too!"

I really can't see a way of arguing a race is inherently inferior that's somehow "creative".

Keep in mind that at that time it was in a thread about race, and the context of the conversation was race. QT departed from this context without indicating he had done so, leaving us all behind (and in doing so pulled my words right the hell out of context, but I'll find the love in me to forgive him one day).

So both myself and RB thought he was talking about being able to talk creatively about race, and responded as such. But that was not QT's intention. We weren't accusing him of being racist, we were just addressing the things we (reasonably) perceived him as saying.

Just as a bit of a PSA because it feels like it keeps on happening, this discussion is almost always going to be bigger than the thread in front of you. It's taking place in multiple threads (some of which have been chopped up with thread splits in an attempt to unify the argument), apparently on multiple forums, between >2 perspectives. It's a bit of a headache really, and it's understandably going to be difficult for people to follow if they're not keeping a keen eye on it.

1. Having your own ideas is not racist.
2. Your Level of Reasearch should not disqualify you from having discussions on different subjects.

1) We're not interested in the ideas people have in their heads.

2) But if anyone wants to use this forum as a platform to propagate their ideas that attack others, we want them to at least be ideas with some meat to them.

I really don't understand why knickers are so knotted. This policy is still yet to be invoked on anyone. Intolerable was not stopped, evidence was not even demanded.

 

[The Gopher]

2. Your Level of Research should not disqualify you from having discussions on different subjects.

No we should ban inferior minds, they just make discussion worse.

 

[Black Rose]

So both myself and RB thought he was talking about being able to talk creatively about race, and responded as such. But that was not QT's intention. We weren't accusing him of being racist, we were just addressing the things we (reasonably) perceived him as saying.

I thought it was a matter of what thoughts are expressable and which ones are not. (Look at Gophers joke of banning inferior minds). But in this context, I can see you took the comment to be about a new context and not about how thoughts should be expressed regarding QuickTwist comments.

The problem I am seeing is in Policy of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression. What is and is not allowed because this is involved in The Policy of what is allowed and not allowed on INTPforum.

1) We're not interested in the ideas people have in their heads.

Generally, I express my ideas that are currently allowed on the forum to share them and add to the discussions I am willing to. When an idea is on the forum it is no longer just in my head.

2) But if anyone wants to use this forum as a platform to propagate their ideas that attack others, we want them to at least be ideas with some meat to them.

You are concerned with expressed ideas that attack others that are expressed in tangible comments on the forum. Yes attaching others is bad. I try to express my ideas to not do so.

No we should ban inferior minds, they just make discussion worse.

Joke?

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes it was a joke. As a primordial law if Gopher is mean it's a joke. The whimpering simpleton has not a mean body to bone.

Your ideas are allowable on the forum. But if they are ideas that persecute others you may be asked to evidence them. If you wanted to convince me that Hitler did nothing wrong, I'd allow you to, if you could produce a real argument complete with evidence. If you wanted to argue that the moonlanding was faked by the negro conspiracy, or that all muslims are secretly lizard people, or that Obama is actually a heterosexual pretending to be a deep-cover homosexual in a loving marriage with his wife for dammit I can't remember Sinny's reasons, I won't impede you if you bring evidence along for the ride.

You can be a hater, or you can be mindless, but if you're partaking in mindless hate we gonna ask for some mind k? <3

 

[The Gopher]

Yes it was a joke. As a primordial law if Gopher is mean it's a joke. The whimpering simpleton has not a mean body to bone.

Your ideas are allowable on the forum. But if they are ideas that persecute others you may be asked to evidence them. If you wanted to convince me that Hitler did nothing wrong, I'd allow you to, if you could produce a real argument complete with evidence. If you wanted to argue that the moonlanding was faked by the negro conspiracy, or that all muslims are secretly lizard people, or that Obama is actually a heterosexual pretending to be a deep-cover homosexual in a loving marriage with his wife for dammit I can't remember Sinny's reasons, I won't impede you if you bring evidence along for the ride.

You can be a hater, or you can be mindless, but if you're partaking in mindless hate we gonna ask for some mind k? <3

I prefer being a mindless lover so it works out for me. There is no point being mean to a theoretical or group. Be mean to individuals instead. More pay off and they can't fight back as well.

Also idk Hado I'm trying to work on my sass, apparently I'm not gay enough without it.

 

[redbaron]

The problem I am seeing is in Policy of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression

what do you do when your freedom of expression violates someone's freedom from persecution?

~

This policy still allows people to express, in essence, whatever the fuck actual views they have. Whether they're racist or sexist or something else, they can express it: just back up why you're a racist/sexist/homophobe in the process, rather than reflexively persecuting people who're often a minority and don't really have the voice to fight back, or who are so inherently targeted by the vitriol that they can't really have a level-headed discussion on the topic (and I don't blame them).

 

[Cognisant]

https://www.wikihow.com/Be-Sassy
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf6ZN4Mp0cQ"

Our buddy William Shakespeare said it best when he said, "I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed."[1] Comebacks are sassy when they're disguised as a statement of fact or a question, as opposed to stating your opinion. They're nicer on the outside than they are on the inside. Instead of saying, "Oi! Shut up!" You say, "Is your name Kanye West? It's not? Then stop interrupting me." Kind of like that. Or, next time your friend is talking about how awesome they are, you say, "I'd like to agree with you, but I don't want to be wrong." Zing!

Sassy girls tend to zero-in on two types of humor: humor at another's expense and humor at their expense (aka self-deprecating humor). Both are light-hearted, of course!

I spent 15min researching what "sassy" is, it's a difficult concept I think it's something like wit but with a certain hard-to-describe implied attitude.

what do you do when your freedom of expression violates someone's freedom from persecution?

I think this is more a matter of people expressing their freedom to feel persecuted.

Am I doing it right?

 

[Black Rose]

I think this is more a matter of people expressing their freedom to feel persecuted.

Am I doing it right?

I remember people fighting with each other and they were banned but now the reason new policies exist is that it is bleed over from other forms I have no involvements in. For the love of me, I cannot see how it can be otherwise because I just remember it began with QT post. How many MBTI forums exist? Redbarons feelings on this matter are just too strong for everything to have come from INTPforum.

The policy changed because of what is happening on other forums that staff is involved in and members too. But we never had problems with identity and such. Fights were small and it was private message and in the forum. I do not remember people being persecuted on this forum other than small fights. I do not remember racist threads and I do not remember transphobe threads. All this is coming from outside the forum.

This is worth noting

All this is coming from outside the forum.

 

[Hadoblado]

No AK.

If someone were part of stormfront, then they came here and started asking about whether the Holocaust happened, the context outside the forum would play a role in how we interpret their actions.

QT's actions alone weren't nice. But when they're underlined by comments that expand upon that attitude, it makes it pretty clear that he's not really respecting the people he's talking about. And he still got off scott free wowee benevolent modship but nooo000ooo everyone's focused on the bans that never happened for whatever reason. It's almost as if people are bringing in a whole bunch of political baggage from every direction.

This is worth noting

All this is coming from outside the forum.

Where did this quote come from? Because this did not 'all come from outside the forum'. A little bit of damning context did.

The policy changed because of what is happening on other forums that staff is involved in and members too. But we never had problems on identity and such. Fights were small and it was private message and in the forum. I do not remember people being persecuted on this forum other than small fights. I do not remember racist threads and I do not remember transphobe threads. All this is coming from outside the forum.

From your limited perspective. But you don't see everything on this forum. I've had people complain to me about the racism even before I was a mod. People have complained about the casual bigotry towards the transgendered (and left because of it). Posters I value have ceased their activity here because they didn't feel comfortable with all the sexism floating around.

Can't remember the 'gold chains' drama? What about the 'transgenderism is a mental disease' scuffle?

People that are being attacked for stuff they shouldn't have to defend themselves for don't tend to fight back when it's the millionth time they've been singled out. Their response tends to be to feel unwelcome and to participate less.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The only thing that troubles me about this rule is this verificationist principle that viable propositions are those that are empirically verified. That's definitely not how scientific inquiry works, for example, and is definitely not a necessary condition in any sort of discourse. The question then is, why do you impose such a particular rule for that set of topics? Because effectively, it will not improve the actual discussion, it will just limit it to verificationist arguments and whatever bad logic that accompanies that.

 

[Black Rose]

From your limited perspective. But you don't see everything on this forum. I've had people complain to me about the racism even before I was a mod. People have complained about the casual bigotry towards the transgendered (and left because of it). Posters I value have ceased their activity here because they didn't feel comfortable with all the sexism floating around.

The things I do not see I guess limit my perspective yes.
I cannot say anything more.

 

[redbaron]

Are we reading the same policy?

If you want to express an opinion that marginalises another group, you are still free to do so. However, if you truly believe your thoughts are worth sharing after considering the cost of implicitly attacking another group, then you are required to back up that opinion with evidence.

And yes to echo Hadoblado's sentiment, I know a number of quite valuable people who've left or ceased engaging in topics because of the same reasons and honestly, based on the feedback both public and private, I think this is a step in the right direction.

Anyway I don't think there's any legitimate complaint being madee against the policy as stated, just hypothetical exaggerations masqueraded as 'debate'.

Unsurprisingly these are mostly originating from people who're not part of or closely linked to any of the groups that are routinely persecuted in society and in the past on this forum.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah Serac but this isn't scientific inquiry. It's facilitation of baseless bigotry.

I think that it's already been successful in provoking a more reasoned discussion. I was super impressed with where grayman ended up in the debate (I don't mean to be condescending but I was impressed) even if we're still not thinking the same way on the issue.

I guess I just have ...less than zero respect... for the proposition that we are somehow actually going to solve these issues by getting together and toeing the party line with no reference to the wealth of literature available.

I'm pretty bamboozled that this is the line in the sand people are drawing. I'm already able to ban people for nitpicking and free speech whining and nobody gives a shit! But if I lay the ground to impede the persecution of our members everyone's up in arms. Why is this the freedom you choose to defend? Honestly what the fuck is wrong with you people? (I mean that in the nicest possible way but damn it doesn't make sense to me).

 

[Black Rose]

I think that misrepresentations should be corrected if a person is bringing up a subjected they have little experience in. I made a comment and the thread closed. People were mad at the statements OP had made. That was why I made my comment. I did not know that is would balloon outward like this. I know that groups of which some here are members of felts or even nonmembers of that group felt the person was being inappropriate and thus all the opposing comments. I was just confused because I the amount of emotion there. I just wanted to be clear that misrepresentation was not happening. Maybe I did that poorly. Did not know what I was doing. Did not comprehend.

I agree with the new policy, I never opposed it. I wanted to communicate that I thought I understood and accept trans people for who they are. The race IQ thing I do not debate because I find it hard to study. I have always changed my behavior when I get feedback from the forum. I am not in opposition to trans people, I am confused by the emotions being expressed by people here. I try to be as clear as possible what making my belief statements.

 

[Cognisant]

But if I lay the ground to impede the persecution of our members everyone's up in arms. Why is this the freedom you choose to defend?

Persecuting the persecutors is fun for the whole family.

I think one should never ban someone for being wrong, no matter how wrong they are, even if the way in which they are wrong is incredibly offensive, because a forum is a place for discussion/debate and people who are wrong/offensive can be seen as a consumable resource. Once that resource has been consumed, once the discussion/debate has been had and the offender has been thoroughly refuted and they're just repeating the same nonsense over and over, then like shit in a colon it's time for the waste to be expelled.

 

[Puffy]

Maybe it'd help if people clarified whether they take issue with the underlying goal behind this policy -- as I understand it, to create a welcoming atmosphere for, and encourage participation from, people of marginalised groups -- or disagree with the effectiveness of the policy itself as an action towards achieving this goal?

If we agree with the former, why not just consent to seeing how the policy goes once it's put into action, and propose viable alternatives when and as we run into problems with it? Or, if you feel you can't consent, propose amendments you could live with? If we agree with the goal and the policy, there's nothing to discuss.

I feel like the underlying drama and unconstructiveness to this discussion is coming partly from a resistance to perceived authority that is common to the forum culture.

 

[Black Rose]

Puffy is post 2727.
that's double 27's
Puffy is 27 years old

(ya I guess that if you are hampering a person from participation, then that is a bad thing to do, everyone should feel they can participate without defending their right to exist)

 

[The Gopher]

I'm pretty bamboozled that this is the line in the sand people are drawing. I'm already able to ban people for nitpicking and free speech whining and nobody gives a shit! But if I lay the ground to impede the persecution of our members everyone's up in arms. Why is this the freedom you choose to defend? Honestly what the fuck is wrong with you people? (I mean that in the nicest possible way but damn it doesn't make sense to me).

Well if they complained about that it would be nitpicking and free speech whining so it's kinda counterproductive if you want to avoid a ban. Since this is new there's still a chance to avoid the oppressive all powerful dystopia of INTP forum.

I think the freedom to express opinions is good because it clarifies who the idiots are quickly.

Maybe it'd help if people clarified whether they take issue with the underlying goal behind this policy -- as I understand it, to create a welcoming atmosphere for, and encourage participation from, people of marginalised groups -- or disagree with the effectiveness of the policy itself as an action towards achieving this goal?

If we agree with the former, why not just consent to seeing how the policy goes once it's put into action, and propose viable alternatives when and as we run into problems with it? Or, if you feel you can't consent, propose amendments you could live with? If we agree with the goal and the policy, there's nothing to discuss.

I feel like the underlying drama and unconstructiveness to this discussion is coming partly from a resistance to perceived authority that is common to the forum culture.

First point. Sure everyone likes a welcoming atmosphere for the most part, only the argumentative sections and arena exist so we don't all become INFP's.

Let me strawman you real quick though.

Do people take issue with protecting children or the effectiveness of the policy to implement camera's in everyone's houses?

If we agree with the former, why not just consent to having camera's in our houses and propose viable alternatives when and as we run into problems with it? (On a serious note is that not what's happening currently?) If we agree with the goal and the policy, there's nothing to discuss.

I take issue with the effectiveness of the policy and the potential. In a perfect world I wouldn't. Maybe I simply take issue with INTP's trying to manage people and society. That said I don't disagree with how it was implemented, or... not implemented recently I simply am disagreeing on policy.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Yeah Serac but this isn't scientific inquiry. It's facilitation of baseless bigotry.

I think that it's already been successful in provoking a more reasoned discussion. I was super impressed with where grayman ended up in the debate (I don't mean to be condescending but I was impressed) even if we're still not thinking the same way on the issue.

I guess I just have ...less than zero respect... for the proposition that we are somehow actually going to solve these issues by getting together and toeing the party line with no reference to the wealth of literature available.

I'm pretty bamboozled that this is the line in the sand people are drawing. I'm already able to ban people for nitpicking and free speech whining and nobody gives a shit! But if I lay the ground to impede the persecution of our members everyone's up in arms. Why is this the freedom you choose to defend? Honestly what the fuck is wrong with you people? (I mean that in the nicest possible way but damn it doesn't make sense to me).

I simply think it would be better if you said something like: if you want to discuss sensitive subjects, make clear, logical arguments and state clearly what your propositions are (so that if they are wrong, they can be refuted)

Otherwise it seems we are limited to exchanging links to papers or whatever, which is definitely not a good way of arguing anything.

But ultimately, I leave all the politics stuff up to you folks

 

[Puffy]

Well if they complained about that it would be nitpicking and free speech whining so it's kinda counterproductive if you want to avoid a ban. Since this is new there's still a chance to avoid the oppressive all powerful dystopia of INTP forum.

I think the freedom to express opinions is good because it clarifies who the idiots are quickly.



First point. Sure everyone likes a welcoming atmosphere for the most part, only the argumentative sections and arena exist so we don't all become INFP's.

Let me strawman you real quick though.

Do people take issue with protecting children or the effectiveness of the policy to implement camera's in everyone's houses?

If we agree with the former, why not just consent to having camera's in our houses and propose viable alternatives when and as we run into problems with it? (On a serious note is that not what's happening currently?) If we agree with the goal and the policy, there's nothing to discuss.

I take issue with the effectiveness of the policy and the potential. In a perfect world I wouldn't. Maybe I simply take issue with INTP's trying to manage people and society. That said I don't disagree with how it was implemented, or... not implemented recently I simply am disagreeing on policy.

It sounds like you agree with the goal but disagree with the policy, if I understand you. I'm guessing you'd agree, by your analogy, that it's important to have policies that protect children, so long as the policies can't be abused by those who implement them?

Given we have a problem that people have left the forum over perceived insensitivity around this area, what do you think would be an effective alternative we can do as a community to show we care, or how do you think we could amend this policy to address your concerns? Chances are there's a better solution, and I think the constructive benefit of threads like this is to pool more input from people.

Puffy is post 2727.
that's double 27's
Puffy is 27 years old

(ya I guess that if you are hampering a person from participation, then that is a bad thing to do, everyone should feel they can participate without defending their right to exist)

Unfortunately not anymore, though I am 28 next year.

 

[Haim]

I really don't understand why knickers are so knotted. This policy is still yet to be invoked on anyone. Intolerable was not stopped, evidence was not even demanded.

Because you are being passive aggressive.
science method is a good tool when you can make an accurate measurement, it is not fitted to understand everything, we can not yet accurately measure intelligence and the brain, using science for that is pseudo science that until you can have more data and are capable of processing it.
Saying we should only use science for understanding the world is absurd, we have more tools better fitted, to understand a complex system as the brain the best way we currently have is a complex system called the brain.

 

[Grayman]

This debate is old hat. Some people are sensitive to certain subjects and see attacks that are not there. More like they view certain opinions as a threat to their existence hence they cry bigot yet cannot point to any claims or attacks made against them. All they have is an overactive intuition that feels something is about them when it really isn't.

I do think offering links makes discussion better and if it this system is abused I will jump in with my pitch fork like the rest of the mob here but until then...*yawn
Just a bunch of paraniod tin hat wearers for sure. Yep that was actually an insult! Without evidence! Time to cry like babies now bitches!

 

[Black Rose]

I simply think it would be better if you said something like: if you want to discuss sensitive subjects, make clear, logical arguments and state clearly what your propositions are (so that if they are wrong, they can be refuted)

Otherwise it seems we are limited to exchanging links to papers or whatever, which is definitely not a good way of arguing anything.

But ultimately, I leave all the politics stuff up to you folks

You read my mind (after cleaning it up and organizing it a bit).

 

[Hadoblado]

Do people take issue with protecting children or the effectiveness of the policy to implement camera's in everyone's houses?

If we agree with the former, why not just consent to having camera's in our houses and propose viable alternatives when and as we run into problems with it? (On a serious note is that not what's happening currently?) If we agree with the goal and the policy, there's nothing to discuss.

I take issue with the effectiveness of the policy and the potential. In a perfect world I wouldn't. Maybe I simply take issue with INTP's trying to manage people and society. That said I don't disagree with how it was implemented, or... not implemented recently I simply am disagreeing on policy.

So the derogated minority is the children you would have us have you think of? Beautiful set-up if deliberate. Not sure if I'm okay with minorities being thought of as helpless children but w/e.

I don't think the comparison holds water. We're not implementing privacy policy - that would be if we wanted to look at your PMs. More like, we're implementing a law that allows us to remove children from abusive parents. There, I said it. All racists are pedophiles.

You're concerned that such a policy might be used against parents who haven't been beating their children. But think of the children!

I simply think it would be better if you said something like: if you want to discuss sensitive subjects, make clear, logical arguments and state clearly what your propositions are (so that if they are wrong, they can be refuted)

Otherwise it seems we are limited to exchanging links to papers or whatever, which is definitely not a good way of arguing anything.

But ultimately, I leave all the politics stuff up to you folks

Sure. But I'd prefer to set up a troll toll. Arguments that sounds like they might be real are easy to produce. Justification for genuine positions that are divisive but lack evidence are particularly easy to produce if you have a conclusion you're pushing. This isn't just about truth (though that is a large part of it), this is primarily about reducing bigoted noise. Call me a cynic, but I don't really buy the 'bad ideas can't exist in the company of good ones forever' spiel. There is a cost payed by the derogated party every time someone slanders them, the least you can do is have reasons for why you're shitting on someone.

To be clear, people are still allowed to say the things without evidence. But then they might be asked for evidence before they continue. It's not like all discussion will stop unless there's a source.

Because you are being passive aggressive.
science method is a good tool when you can make an accurate measurement, it is not fitted to understand everything, we can not yet accurately measure intelligence and the brain, using science for that is pseudo science that until you can have more data and are capable of processing it.
Saying we should only use science for understanding the world is absurd, we have more tools better fitted, to understand a complex system as the brain the best way we currently have is a complex system called the brain.

I'm still not sure what you're saying. What alternative are you presenting?

Because it seems to me like you're saying my opinion is fact, and if I already know the facts what need do I have of yours?