INTPf Policy Change

[Hadoblado]

Hi guys.

Given our most recent drama, there’s been some discussion in the modbox and elsewhere over to what extent the expression of damaging opinions should be facilitated on this forum.

On the one hand, this is a place about discussing ideas. It’s explicitly stated in the CoC that all ideas beyond a few practical exceptions are welcome to be discussed here, no matter how distasteful.

However, in the long term, this seems to backfire to some extent. Ideas that marginalise others shape who feels welcome in our forum, and thus who stays. This results in the effective suppression of opposing ideas over time.

So with this in mind, after talking it over with a few members, we have the following changes we’d like to trial:

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.

The onus of providing proof is shifted. There is a fact-tax on derogatory statements to reflect the implicit cost payed by those they target. This policy is aimed at eliminating ‘shallow’ bigotry, while still allowing real discussions about the issues to take place.

 

[QuickTwist]

So like, any opinion that can step on someone's toes is breaking the rules?

Sorry, not sure I understand this.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The need for evidence seems to limit the discussion to purely empirical phenomena. I cannot criticise Islam, for example, by an argument against its values. There is no empirical "evidence" that stoning people to death is a bad idea - it's a matter of values and philosophy.

I mean, I understand the idea, but maybe something like "well-formed arguments" should also be allowed

 

[Cognisant]

The need for evidence seems to limit the discussion to purely empirical phenomena. I cannot criticise Islam, for example, by an argument against its values. There is no empirical "evidence" that stoning people to death is a bad idea - it's a matter of values and philosophy.

That sounds like a fun debate, I love discussing values and philosophy, but if an Islamic person were to take issue with you suggesting that Islam condones stoning people then the onus of proof would be on you, as it should be.

I mean, I understand the idea, but maybe something like "well-formed arguments" should also be allowed

I think that's exactly what Hadoblado's getting at, of late there have been people who have been asserting complete nonsense without any attempt to justify themselves, instead putting it upon our more reasonable members to correct them.

Edit:

I'm adding an update in light of recent drama.

Members are not to provoke others with the intent of having their reaction attract the attention of the mods. Both baiter and baited will be held accountable for any break-outs that ensue.

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.

So I can't just call people stupid but if they are being stupid to bait me I can call them out on that.

 

[QuickTwist]

The problem is in the subjectivity of the words "marginalises", "group", and "evidence".

 

[Cognisant]

Please provide an example where this would be unclear.

 

[The Gopher]

"after talking it over with a few members"

I am offended I was not included. I factually know I was not included because nobody has this conversation with me. Due to this I think the mods are not particularly wide spread when it comes to evaluating ideas and making decisions. This might lead to close-minded decisions which work well in a Utopian theory but not in context or reality.

I am now free to marginalise the mods and say they are close-minded unrealistic and cultish right?

I think that's exactly what Hadoblado's getting at, of late there have been people who have been asserting complete nonsense without any attempt to justify themselves, instead putting it upon our more reasonable members to correct them.

So what if people think they are making well reasoned justified arguments but are objectively and factually stupid and so they aren't. What if they aren't objectively stupid however they are objectively bad at conveying their thoughts?

 

[Hadoblado]

@Cog
The thing about baiting was added a long time ago. It was in response to Bronto and CC deliberately baiting Sinny into getting banned. It's not a license to do anything, it's just to stop people escalating conflict in order to get people removed.

@Serac
Cog's got the right of it. If you were to say all Muslims are in favour of stoning people to death, you would need to evidence it.

The intention is not to shut down opposing views. Don't quote me on it, but I don't think you would need to adjust your posting style.

@QT
We'll see how it plays out. Concerns about changes uniformly overshadow eventual outcomes.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Serac
Cog's got the right of it. If you were to say all Muslims are in favour of stoning people to death, you would need to evidence it.

But sirs.. That would be evidence for the premise and not the conclusion. It would be no different than, say, providing evidence of the mere existence of transgender people, and subsequently provide a value judgement of them.

 

[Cognisant]

So what if people think they are making well reasoned justified arguments but are objectively and factually stupid and so they aren't. What if they aren't objectively stupid however they are objectively bad at conveying their thoughts?

"Scientists don't want to investigate <nonsense> because they don't believe in <nonsense>"

Rather than the onus of proof being on me to explain why in actual fact scientists would be thrilled to investigate miracles, psychic powers or archeological evidence of aliens, if there was any credible evidence for such things, which for me is a lot of effort to respond to a single sentence. Instead I can simply call them out on not providing evidence for their ridiculous claim, this doesn't prevent them providing such evidence if they have it but saves me a lot of frustration and so I won't be so tempted to attack their credibility and and insult them.

I'm not going to accuse everyone I disagree with of baiting, nor demand proof all the time just to be an obstructive asshole.

 

[Cognisant]

But sirs.. That would be evidence for the premise and not the conclusion. It would be no different than, say, providing evidence of the mere existence of transgender people, and subsequently provide a value judgement of them.

If you simply want to discuss the merits of stoning people irrespective of who is doing the stoning then there's no problem, if you want to discuss the morality of Islamic people doing the stoning then you need either provide evidence of them doing that or specify that you're discussing a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Black Rose]

A certain group was, as it was felt, represented in a wrong way. This received kickback. As I saw it no attempt was presented to show that the representations were incorrect. All that happened was that people called the person ignorant, did not want to correct their ignorance and that a "nonstupid" person could find the truth by 5 minutes of google research. I found this to go on for some time before I made my comments correcting as I saw it the representations that were incorrect. I am unaware what happened on other forums, but in this case of this thread, I saw behaviors by people that plainly showed that were not interested in correcting misrepresentations but only in attacking the original poster. (your wrong and the internet proves me right, I need not make any counter statements showing you are wrong nor provide the material I claim is on the internet proving I am right) Repeat this for 4 or 5 posts.

 

[The Gopher]

"Scientists don't want to investigate <nonsense> because they don't believe in <nonsense>"

Rather than the onus of proof being on me to explain why in actual fact scientists would be thrilled to investigate miracles, psychic powers or archeological evidence of aliens, if there was any credible evidence for such things, which for me is a lot of effort to respond to a single sentence. Instead I can simply call them out on not providing evidence for their ridiculous claim, this doesn't prevent them providing such evidence if they have it but saves me a lot of frustration and so I won't be so tempted to attack their credibility and and insult them.

I'm not going to accuse everyone I disagree with of baiting, nor demand proof all the time just to be an obstructive asshole.

That's not my point. I'm not sure how you got from what I said to someone not providing evidence for the flat earth society.

Don't pick a losing battle with no evidence pick a winning one with an attempt at evidence but a failure to accurately convey that evidence.

If someone attempts to provide facts and proof that Japan was once bombed by nuclear weapons but fails miserably and in doing so marginalises Americans. Is that an issue? Now what if they do the same but with an issue that the majority of people disagree with? In practice will this rule simply be used against the side that people disagree with when it comes to subjective issues and the majority.

If you simply want to discuss the merits of stoning people irrespective of who is doing the stoning then there's no problem, if you want to discuss the morality of Islamic people doing the stoning then you need either provide evidence of them doing that or specify that you're discussing a hypothetical scenario.

So if someone made a thread condemning stoning and everyone who stones that would be fine right? No implication at all of course. What about if there was a discussion on the merits of having sex with same sex people regardless of who is doing it? You can't actually factually backup or oppose factually a lot of subjective moral issues. What if there was a general thread discussing moderators in general in the wider world that was surprisingly specific.

I'm not simply shit stirring I'm just noticing the rule is quite vague and grey so I'm curious where the line snakes.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The way I understand it is simply that if you want to argue "A implies B", then if you want to conclude "B" you have to provide evidence that "A" is true as well. That's simple logic, though.

For example if "B" is "Muslims are bad because they stone people" then I can argue that "it's bad to stone people" by metaphysical arguments but if I want to conclude "B" I should provide empirical evidence for "A" i.e. "Muslims stone people".

I think it's a good rule

 

[QuickTwist]

I thought Ragnar thinks sites should be self contained. "Evidence" usually implies a link to an external source, no?

 

[The Gopher]

I thought Ragnar thinks sites should be self contained. "Evidence" usually implies a link to an external source, no?

Can I marginalise QuickTwist if I provide evidence and reasoning from INTPf alone?

 

[Black Rose]

QT thinks trans people are the way they are because of x y and z. Therefore he has marginalized trans people. No one should explain to him why x y and z are incorrect and that a b and c are the correct reasons trans people are trans. He is just ignorant and should use google more often.

 

[Cognisant]

Don't pick a losing battle with no evidence pick a winning one with an attempt at evidence but a failure to accurately convey that evidence.

Well hopefully someone will agree with and assist them, if not then they're simply a victim of their own incompetence and that's all there is to it.

If someone attempts to provide facts and proof that Japan was once bombed by nuclear weapons but fails miserably and in doing so marginalises Americans. Is that an issue? Now what if they do the same but with an issue that the majority of people disagree with? In practice will this rule simply be used against the side that people disagree with when it comes to subjective issues and the majority.

That's not a subjective example, if the issue was truly subjective like an entirely theological discussion, well first off I wouldn't care but more to the point if there's no evidence that can be given then it would be unreasonable to ask for it.
That. Being. Said.
If someone wants to assert the existence of a fictional character then the assertion is without merit if there's no evidence of it.

What about if there was a discussion on the merits of having sex with same sex people regardless of who is doing it? You can't actually factually backup or oppose factually a lot of subjective moral issues.

Simply saying I believe such'n'such is moral/immoral for wholly subjective reasons isn't much of subject for discussion.

 

[QuickTwist]

Can I marginalise QuickTwist if I provide evidence and reasoning from INTPf alone?

Why would you want to?

 

[QuickTwist]

QT thinks trans people are the way they are because of x y and z. Therefore he has marginalized trans people. No one should explain to him why x y and z are incorrect and that a b and c are the correct reasons trans people are trans. He is just ignorant and should use google more often.

Maybe its just that I am always trying to find out how I came to be the person I am today so I do it for other things too.

Causation of behavior isn't really accepted in the psychological community. At least I don't think it is. I say this because there have been numerous occasions where I have talked about trying to get to the root of why I do what I do in a particular instance and the answer I always get from therapists is that it doesn't matter and what matter is what you can do about it now. To me, that seems like avoiding the core issue and I am someone who always wants to get to the core issue.

 

[Black Rose]

The whole issue is that in order for trans people to follow your explanation for being trans (seeking independence) You fail to give biological explanations and rather psychological explanations for trans people identity. The two should not be mixed up. You said you have no idea why a person would seek independence from society by changing their biological sex. It is like saying "My dad beat me every day so I will become a girl to gain independence from the patriarchy." Sounds odd but could happen but also has nothing to do with people on the whole who are trans being trans because of their biology.

Sex changes are not about independence in the way you think it is about it. It is about identity. Independence is about not having to obey another person's rules. Identity is at the core of my being as in who and what am I. Why would changing who I am, result in a sudden independence by having a sex change? If I change my sex, who am I independent from? I would only have a sex change if I felt like who I am is a girl (Because I myself am male). I do not feel like I am a girl, I feel I am a male. The whole thing about gender and independence does not match up to what Identity is about.

If it felt wrong to have male sex organs I would feel this is not my identity to be male. I would have a sex change if I did not want my body to feel wrong any longer. This is how it goes for the vast, vast majority of trans persons. Like being gay it is not caused by psychological factors like seeking independence. Gays are not gay to have independence. It is biological and this is also the accepted reason trans people are trans, it is their biology.

@QuickTwist

You do try and understand the reasons for things. But in this case, I think you went into an area that most accepted the biological explanations and your involvement with psychological sessions came across and insensitive. Hadoblado for instance not understanding your involvement with therapy because of mental illness and failing to see that you had no bad intentions is shown by the new rule added to the other rules. Makes it clear to me that sensitive issues are not fully understood when it comes to the whole identity politics thing. The thread about prostitution being bad is something that comes to mind as another sensitive issue. The point is that you were met with negative responses because you were trying to use your psychology experience on the issue which others think is inappropriate. I simply disagree with it. I know you are not the type to marginalize anyone.

 

[Hadoblado]

@AK
You don't get to decide what I do and don't understand. This isn't about intention. QT is not a bad dude. This isn't a punishment. This is about people not having to constantly justify their existence against weightless claims.

I implore you all to just see how it works out. I feel like you're all overwhelmed with the possibilities of what this could mean to the point you're unwilling to find out what it does mean.

 

[QuickTwist]

The whole issue is that in order for trans people to follow your explanation for being trans (seeking independence) You fail to give biological explanations and rather psychological explanations for trans people identity. The two should not be mixed up. You said you have no idea why a person would seek independence from society by changing their biological sex. It is like saying "My dad beat me every day so I will become a girl to gain independence from the patriarchy." Sounds odd but could happen but also has nothing to do with people on the whole who are trans being trans because of their biology.

Sex changes are not about independence in the way you think it is about it. It is about identity. Independence is about not having to obey another person's rules. Identity is at the core of my being as in who and what am I. Why would changing who I am, result in a sudden independence by having a sex change? If I change my sex, who am I independent from? I would only have a sex change if I felt like who I am is a girl (Because I myself am male). I do not feel like I am a girl, I feel I am a male. The whole thing about gender and independence does not match up to what Identity is about.

If it felt wrong to have male sex organs I would feel this is not my identity to be male. I would have a sex change if I did not want my body to feel wrong any longer. This is how it goes for the vast, vast majority of trans persons. Like being gay it is not caused by psychological factors like seeking independence. Gays are not gay to have independence. It is biological and this is also the accepted reason trans people are trans, it is their biology.

@QuickTwist

You do try and understand the reasons for things. But in this case, I think you went into an area that most accepted the biological explanations and your involvement with psychological sessions came across and insensitive. Hadoblado for instance not understanding your involvement with therapy because of mental illness and failing to see that you had no bad intentions is shown by the new rule added to the other rules. Makes it clear to me that sensitive issues are not fully understood when it comes to the whole identity politics thing. The thread about prostitution being bad is something that comes to mind as another sensitive issue. The point is that you were met with negative responses because you were trying to use your psychology experience on the issue which others think is inappropriate. I simply disagree with it. I know you are not the type to marginalize anyone.

I think you have it pretty well sorted, AK. If there is one thing I have a problem with in the psychological community it is that they tend to be a little too focused on being results oriented over process oriented.

[Edit] But I mean, like, most of the world and most professions today are more focussed on being results oriented over process oriented, so its just a problem I have with society as a whole.

 

[Black Rose]

@AK
You don't get to decide what I do and don't understand.

I thought you did not understand. (or did not know)
I did not decide what happened in your brain as it is not under my control.
I never said you should do specific actions.

This is about people not having to constantly justify their existence against weightless claims.

Then I see the benefit of the new rule.

 

[redbaron]

The last few discussions about trans people never ended up involving the trans people on this forum, who were at best totally repulsed from engaging in the threads and at worst actually quite hurt by it. This has occurred in the past as well, from before I was a moderator.

Of course, everyone has an opinion on trans people but when a trans person actually speaks, someone has to call them fucked up or damaged and dismiss their ideas as if they somehow know what motivates trans people better than trans people.

So this change reflects the fact that actually, we have trans people here, and we don't want this to be a place that is uninviting or makes them feel unwelcome, and that they will receive at least the bare minimum of respect that we mostly show others.

Some people say some really questionable shit on this forum, and people will fairly engage them. But a trans person appears and suddenly its really important we tell them how incorrect their existence is.

The rule extends to other groups as well, because this could feasibly happen to others as well but yes, this was a major catalyst.

Also, why are we debating hypotheticals? If you want to test the limits of the policy change, go ahead, but it's pretty damn lenient and requires a very bare minimum of effort to follow. If you can't even reach this basic level of argumentation, then your argument is probably just ignorant or spiteful in the first place and not worth hurting people over.

 

[QuickTwist]

The last few discussions about trans people never ended up involving the trans people on this forum, who were at best totally repulsed from engaging in the threads and at worst actually quite hurt by it. This has occurred in the past as well, from before I was a moderator.

Of course, everyone has an opinion on trans people but when a trans person actually speaks, someone has to call them fucked up or damaged and dismiss their ideas as if they somehow know what motivates trans people better than trans people.

So this change reflects the fact that actually, we have trans people here, and we don't want this to be a place that is uninviting or makes them feel unwelcome, and that they will receive at least the bare minimum of respect that we mostly show others.

Some people say some really questionable shit on this forum, and people will fairly engage them. But a trans person appears and suddenly its really important we tell them how incorrect their existence is.

Also, why are we debating hypotheticals? If you want to test the limits of the policy change, go ahead, but it's pretty damn lenient and requires a very bare minimum of effort to follow. If you can't even reach this basic level of argumentation, then your argument is probably just ignorant or spiteful in the first place and not needed.

The quote that was mentioned from a different forum altogether about how Trans people had mental issues was in a thread called "asshole opinions". I was playing a role in that thread, I wasn't really that serious.

IDK where you are getting the idea that I was dismissing someone's opinion just because they were trans.

Also don't get this "suddenly a trans person shows up and gets attacked" business. If there was a trans person who recently joined the forum it was complete coincidence. But you prolly will not believe me. Meh, I can't control what people think of me.

 

[Grayman]

While as an US American I value free speech to a great degree and feel that anything to restrict it is dangerous as it can lead to the impairment of truth and free thought. Restricting it can also allow ignorant or destructive opinion fester in secret and then the idea may be brought into action instead of taking these opinions or ideas head on and showing them to be untrue or false.
However, in order for free speech to be an effective means of constructive conversation people must be responsible in both exercising and receiving statements, arguments, and opinions. Also, it should be noted that although I promote free speech it does not mean I don’t respect the right of INTPf to do as they please. My values should not dictate the actions of INTPf and the moderators.

That being said, I agree with this change in so far as it promotes better discussion but would like to recommend a few things in effort to protect free discussion. Although I am formatting these as ‘commands’ they should be viewed as recommendations. The formatting is to give a picture as it might look as an official guideline.

1) A member is requested for evidence for their claim/statement and is not punished for claims prior to being requested for evidence. A member is only ‘at fault’ for continuing their claims/statements without providing evidence even after requested.
2) If it is felt the evidence is not sufficient or is baseless, the evidence should be challenged. At no point should the member be ‘at fault’ for ‘not providing sufficient evidence’ if the evidence provided is never challenged and stated as insufficient.
3) Care should be made to what constitutes ‘insufficient evidence’. What constitutes as sufficient evidence can sometimes be subjective. The requirement in believing the provided evidence is often great but the requirement of regarding the evidence as absolutely invalid should be greater still.
4) If the topic of the thread is to what opinions a certain people have and why they have them, requiring those people to then defend those opinions via discussion or evidence should be regarded as ‘off topic’. If discussion is to be made in regards to a particular opinion is valid it is expected that the individual would start a new thread that targets that particular opinion instead of targeting the individual who has the opinions.

i.e. A thread that questions why a certain people have issues accepting ‘gender identity’ as concept can contain people stating their opinions, feelings, and experiences as to why the feel that way. However if an individual who ‘thinks this way’, as related to the original topic, provides their own experience as evidence it cannot be expected they then provide evidence that their experience or feelings are valid. It is expected that those experiences and feelings are but their own experiences and feelings and not to be misconstrued as the individual impressing upon others a claim/statement that might require evidence.
If this then leads to discussion on whether ‘gender identity’ is a real concept it would be expected that the person initiating the discussion starts a new thread where an evidence based discussion can be made. Challenging the beliefs or requiring the individual to state or provide evidence to why their feelings or opinions were valid is not on topic of a thread that asks ‘what’ opinions people have and what led them to having such opinions.
5) The thread maker has the greatest responsibility in setting the tone of discussion. Consequently it should be expected that when making a thread the first post will include evidence to support any claims their made during the creation of the thread.

Finally I would encourage the administration to empower or encourage thread creators to moderate their own threads in that they remind other posters of the specific purpose of the thread when they deviate from topic or discussion that could be toxic to the threads intention. While there are no, and should not be any, tools to enforce a request to stay on topic, people will often oblige and if not then an admin can get involved. I think this format helps reduce the work for admin and helps protect member autonomy. Self-moderation of threads and keeping people on topic can prevent potential for unnecessary conflict, confusion, and trolling and keep the forum cleaner and more organized.

Thanks.

 

[washti]

I feel almost guilty for quoting this other forum thing.
Wonder if misoginistic allusions(also known as jokes) will be hunted with the same spite. After all they are more common and people are used to them pretty well. Curious who from trans people on forum talk with mods. Except Relacuntly I didn see anything. But I guess they want to stay anonymous.

QT is just weak with knowing what he doesnt know - building conclusions with small research, cherry picking source of data (WHO IS NOT TO BLAME FOR THISSSshshs) and questionable quality that is. heh.
The rule is good. It can enforce more in depth posting, with inhibition and diligent research phase , make people less lazy (yeah...that would be great). MAYBE. Good job John.

 

[QuickTwist]

I feel almost guilty for quoting this other forum thing.
Wonder if misoginistic allusions(also known as jokes) will be hunted with the same spite. After all they more common and people are used to them pretty well. Curious who from trans people on forum talk with mods. Except Relacuntly I didn see anything. But I guess they want to stay anonymous.

QT is just weak with knowing what he doesnt know - building conclusions with small research, cherry picking source of data (WHO IS NOT TO BLAME FOR THISSSshshs) and questionable quality that is. heh.
The rule is good. It can enforce more in depth posting, with inhibition and dilligant research phase , make people less lazy (yeah...that would be great). MAYBE. Good job John.

K.

https://www.mercatornet.com/conjuga...ics-say-about-transgender-mental-health/17054

 

[washti]

K.

https://www.mercatornet.com/conjuga...ics-say-about-transgender-mental-health/17054

how one 5 grade lvl article about difficulties and side effects after sex change has got with your assumption that "trans people want to manifest independence from society BY being trans"?...or whatever you mean as "K."

Oh hey YOU JUST PROVE ME RIGHT!

PS. You mean that "they fuck up in the head" = more prone to deprression and suicide and "many people life as a transgender is full of psychological pain." You mean that out of social context e.g that is consequence of how other people treat them?

 

[QuickTwist]

how one 5 grade lvl article about difficulties and side effects after sex change has got with your assumption that "trans people want to manifest independence from society BY being trans"?...or whatever you mean as "K."

Oh hey YOU JUST PROVE ME RIGHT!

PS. You mean that "they fuck up in the head" = more prone to deprression and suicide and "many people life as a transgender is full of psychological pain." You mean that out of social context e.g that is consequence of how other people treat them?

Not going to argue with you.

 

[washti]

Not going to argue with you.

but...but you provoked me! Damn you, one day you will be perma banned, just wait! Baiting me like this...

 

[Jennywocky]

QT, I suggest you also read the affiliations and values of the sites you hang out on, just so you can properly frame data:

https://www.mercatornet.com/info/our_ideals
https://www.mercatornet.com/our_partners

Here's one of their "partners" for example:

The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society
Confusing times call for clear answers—rooted in fact, backed by sound research. It’s happening at The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, a think-tank of fresh ideas and new strategies to protect and promote the natural family. Why are so many nations threatened by depopulation? What is the real danger of redefining marriage? Does the “war on women” actually exist? The Howard Center brings together great minds, thought-provoking publications, and groundbreaking global events to explore such questions, and to pursue the mission of providing sound scholarship and effective strategies to affirm and defend the natural family, thus renewing a stable and free society.

Regardless of whether you agree with their goals or not, it's clear they are posting articles to promote traditional male/female marriages, insinuating maybe the traditional view of women and their role in society/marriage is the best and there is no "war" on females, that birth control is probably bad (notice the "nations threatened by depopulation" comment?), and so forth. Some sources are more biased than others, and it's good to know the bias.

I mean, all I need to read is this and I know that any article these guys post about trans issues is likely to be framing any data in a negative way.

No matter what I read, I am usually looking to understand the main gist of the author(s) and their goals, so I can properly understand how and why they might have framed their views.

 

[Grayman]

I have to say though - how do people get this hysterical about that "fucked up" line from QT? I'm sure one can read all kinds of things into it, but come on... Why this intense, selective sensitivity about it

The rest of that thread was just people using a lot of energy telling QT how stupid and ignorant he is, while adding next to nothing to the subject matter

They give too much power to people and their dumb opinions. Its probably a confidence issue but I am not certain.

 

[QuickTwist]

QT, I suggest you also read the affiliations and values of the sites you hang out on, just so you can properly frame data:

https://www.mercatornet.com/info/our_ideals
https://www.mercatornet.com/our_partners

Here's one of their "partners" for example:



Regardless of whether you agree with their goals or not, it's clear they are posting articles to promote traditional male/female marriages, insinuating maybe the traditional view of women and their role in society/marriage is the best and there is no "war" on females, that birth control is probably bad (notice the "nations threatened by depopulation" comment?), and so forth. Some sources are more biased than others, and it's good to know the bias.

I mean, all I need to read is this and I know that any article these guys post about trans issues is likely to be framing any data in a negative way.

No matter what I read, I am usually looking to understand the main gist of the author(s) and their goals, so I can properly understand how and why they might have framed their views.

Just heard from some source that transgender tend to have more mental health issues than non-transgender. I suppose I could view multiple sources and see if there is a correlation here or not, but I'd rather drop it here.

 

[QuickTwist]

but...but you provoked me! Damn you, one day you will be perma banned, just wait! Baiting me like this...

Nope. You provoked me.

 

[redbaron]

In any case there's really no reason this policy will be a problem and it's not going to be hard either to follow or enforce.

 

[QuickTwist]

In any case there's really no reason this policy will be a problem and it's not going to be hard either to follow or enforce.

To be fair, I have kinda turned the corner on my outlook of transgender people through looking at research. In my mind now, its the same thing as being gay/lesbian/queer/ect. and that is that some people are predispositioned to be this way and the evidence backs up that transgender people have differences in their brain from their born sexes brain. But tbh, I don't think you actually care that I have had a change of opinion and you just want to find an excuse to ban me.

 

[redbaron]

To be fair, I have kinda turned the corner on my outlook of transgender people through looking at research. In my mind now, its the same thing as being gay/lesbian/queer/ect. and that is that some people are predispositioned to be this way and the evidence backs up that transgender people have differences in their brain from their born sexes brain. But tbh, I don't think you actually care that I have had a change of opinion and you just want to find an excuse to ban me.

Glad to hear it.

Of course I care that you've had a change of opinion, because I care that trans people are not exposed to yet more marginalisation from their peers simply because their peers aren't interested in understanding them from the get go.

If I wanted an excuse to ban you, I'd have already banned you for the first iteration of your thread and I wouldn't have spent any time reading, thinking about or discussing this policy change. Nor would I be here engaging you if I just wanted an excuse to ban you - because if that's what I wanted, well I already have one.

 

[washti]

Sure, I am more concerned that you will abuse it by dictating what consitutes evidence. I do recall asking you for information while you threatened me first thing whithout first exploring why I have the opinion I have and what I based it on.

Hey. Some of us here (like me) actually wait for such a scenario to develop! Don't spoil.
And if QT will be banned that fast - there will no more people here who activly initiate some action. No life on. So yeah... current ganging up on RB taking place in many corners has a lot of sense. Just thinking aloud.

 

[Hadoblado]

How evidence is interpreted is a difficult issue, but should probably be obvious most of the time.

In this instance, QT linked a site that has political overtones that are beyond obvious. This would not be considered sufficient. A conflict of interest by the source seems like a good standard for dismissal, as basically anything could otherwise be 'proven' by linking an opinion piece.

@Everyone
You trust us to approach this honestly, and we'll trust you to keep us honest. My preference would be that the members play a role in determining what's insufficient evidence. But again, we're talking about what might be and not what is. For the transgender issue, neither gray nor QT had evidence, so if they did what they did then but now, they'd get dismissed. QT just linked evidence and it was shallow propaganda, again it's clear-cut.

ATM we're having to defend ourselves against our hypothetical future misdeeds, and that doesn't feel fair.

@Grayman
Once you provide a shred of evidence for your beliefs, then we can have a conversation about whether that evidence holds water. I'll talk to you then o/

 

[Pyropyro]

I'm ok with this rule as long as it covers intpf's other punching bags like conservatives, religious people, PUA and even conspiracy theorists. I don't even necessarily agree with these guys but fair is fair.

I find the whole drama as amusing since qt's behaviour wasn't even edgy when it comes to the intpf political threads. The only difference is that you guys enphasize with the group they were criticizing.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Pyro
There's a difference between a person and their beliefs. This policy does not apply to comments made at the expense of ideas.

Nobody has to read a book on how to elicit sex behaviour from females *slurping sound*.

 

[Pyropyro]

@Pyro
There's a difference between a person and their beliefs. This policy does not apply to comments made at the expense of ideas.

Nobody has to read a book on how to elicit sex behaviour from females *slurping sound*.

But i can argue that qt is criticizing about the idea of transexuality rather than the trans themselves.

Again i dont care about the sides. Just that everybody gets to support their claims if they want to talk crap.

@onestep

Intpf guys talk crap about different topics. QT talked crap about topic they feel strongly about. Intpf got their collective jimmies rustled.

Now we can't talk crap without cites to support said trash talk.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can you? Because he wasn't. He made explicit statements about trans people here and elsewhere.

I'll admit such an event is a possibility in the future, where someone makes ambiguous statements that could be interpreted as a criticism of a belief or it's adherents. But this case is clear-cut. How can:

So I am pretty sure I have figured out why people identify as a different sexual orientation than what they were born with. Pretty sure it has to do with an inferiority to independence. They desire independence, but don't have the capacity for it.

Be interpreted as a criticism of an idea? He's clearly making claims about the characteristics attributable to a class of people. It seems bizarre to me that you think you could argue otherwise.

 

[Pyropyro]

Your problem pyro is that you want to be independent, but are incapable of it. You think you understand yourself, but actually you don't. The expert scientists that say you might know what you're talking about... well I haven't read them and they're just kowtowing to their SJW overlords. It's simple. You're just wrong. The reason I don't like you is that you're more fucked up than I am.

Hear me out!

I once met someone that shares a single categorical facet with you so yeah, I feel pretty confident I've gotten to the root of the issue. There's no need to overcomplicate it. There's no overt sign that you're right that I can see with my own two eyes, so I'll trust myself on this one thankyouverymuch.

Anyways, I think the policy is good as long as it isn't selectively enforced and that people are not getting leeway just because you happen to share the same belief systems. I'm going to call you guys out if I see that you're simply using this to shut the opposition up.

 

[The Gopher]

@Everyone
You trust us to approach this honestly, and we'll trust you to keep us honest. My preference would be that the members play a role in determining what's insufficient evidence. But again, we're talking about what might be and not what is. For the transgender issue, neither gray nor QT had evidence, so if they did what they did then but now, they'd get dismissed. QT just linked evidence and it was shallow propaganda, again it's clear-cut.

ATM we're having to defend ourselves against our hypothetical future misdeeds, and that doesn't feel fair.

Oh yes, I'll just let the government have a camera in my house purely for capturing footage of why houses burn down. They are never going to use it in the future for anything else that's all a hypothetical.

Look Hado, there is a reason to fight against setting certain precedents. Particularly when you're saying it's hypothetical future misdeeds when many people have a problem with some past not hypothetical misdeeds. Even simply past not hypothetical mistakes might indicate there are potential future hypothetical mistakes.

Now I'm actually cool with it right now because you are a mod but if you die in a car a accident what will happen to poor INTPF! (I would come to your funeral though)

All this from a 10 second Google Search: "evidence for transgender"

Yeah have you ever google searched "evidence for god"? Try "evidence against god" or "evidence against transgender". Just pointing out there might be a bias in how both of you are dealing with this and searching for evidence.

Now don't get me wrong I have my opinion and it's probably pretty close to yours based on similar evidence however we need to maintain intellectual integrity.

 

[Hadoblado]

Oooh the rarely sighted edgy goph.

The changes are already in place. We're trying them. This isn't a fight, it's people partaking in drama.

You do touch on some points that were discussed prior to this announcement though. We expected resistance, but more in the vein of what you're alluding to than all that came previous.

 

[The Gopher]

Oooh the rarely sighted edgy goph.

The changes are already in place. We're trying them. This isn't a fight, it's people partaking in drama.

You do touch on some points that were discussed prior to this announcement though. We expected resistance, but more in the vein of what you're alluding to than all that came previous.

I am irritable that is a good pickup. Yeah I don't give a hoot about the transgender drama, Quicktwist seemed to be genuinely an idiot but it almost seemed like the kind of idiot that actually thought he had a massive brainwave and had solved the universe despite not. Like when everything suddenly makes sense but then later doesn't because you missed something.

The rule in theory is probably helpful, more the principle and grey areas that annoy me.

For example I didn't read grayman's rules so no idea if they were good or not but that kind of extrapolation on what the rule means practically is nice.

 

[Black Rose]

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.