Is this forum just a place to vent and laugh?

[Tom L.]

I agree with Indian Summer that the thread would have gone downhill fast had he left it open. Conservatives may criticize the fact that liberals dismiss their views without listening, but that doesn’t mean that liberals HAVE to listen to conservative views, even on VeggieViews. All that thread would have done is produce a lot of angry arguments and possibly result in one or more people leaving VeggieViews, possibly permanently, over the expressions of negative feelings. Maybe some people here welcome opposing views, but not many. And certainly not wrt Trump and his policies. I honestly don’t think both political sides can have rational discussions with each other where Donald Trump is concerned, given people either love him or hate him; there’s no middle ground.

(bold emphasis mine) Yep. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't necessarily equal the right to an audience, IMHO.

 

[beancounter]

But that's the thing. You don't have to listen.

People who don't want to hear conservative views have three options on this forum:
1. Simply do not read the thread started by the conservative.
2. Put the conservative on your ignore list.
3. Put the an entire forum area (e.g. the debate thread) on ignore.

There is simple no reason to treat them like barbarians at the gate.. especially before you even hear them.

(bold emphasis mine) Yep. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't necessarily equal the right to an audience, IMHO.

 

[Mischief]

But that's the thing. You don't have to listen.

People who don't want to hear conservative views have three options on this forum:
1. Simply do not read the thread started by the conservative.
2. Put the conservative on your ignore list.
3. Put the an entire forum area (e.g. the debate thread) on ignore.

There is simple no reason to treat them like barbarians at the gate.. especially before you even hear them.

It's actually not as simple as that.

It's one thing to ignore opinions about a variety of topics, but when the opinions in question are rooted in bigotry or other attitudes that one finds morally or ethically objectionable, then to be silent in the face of those opinions is to be complicit.

 

[Mischief]

To be perfectly clear, I'm fine with people posting opinions with which I disagree. I generally find arguing against those opinions to be entertaining, and when I don't find them entertaining, I at least find them to be a way to exercise my mind.

But it seems to me that, if you express an opinion, you should be prepared to defend it instead of whining that it's not fair that most people on a given forum disagree with you.

In other words, don't insist on your "freedom of speech" without being prepared to face others' "freedom of speech."

( I put the phrase in quotation marks because I prefer not to misuse it, as it is so generally misused. It has a very specific meaning, which is that government (with exceptions) is prohibited from preventing free speech or punishing someone for expressing themselves.)

 

[beancounter]

It's actually not as simple as that.

It's one thing to ignore opinions about a variety of topics, but when the opinions in question are rooted in bigotry or other attitudes that one finds morally or ethically objectionable, then to be silent in the face of those opinions is to be complicit.

Well isn't the Debate forum the only place where politics can be expressed? If they repeatedly ignore the rules and/or warnings, the wont't last long.

With regard to being complicit, realistically I think that only applies if the speaker is influential and can reach a meaningfully large audience (which isn't VV).

But also, your statement implies that other people reading the conservatives thread aren't smart enough to judge what the person is saying on their own without your counter arguments to to guide them.

 

[Mischief]

Well isn't the Debate forum the only place where politics can be expressed? If they repeatedly ignore the rules and/or warnings, the wont't last long.

I just re-read the guidelines posted for the debate forum, and I don't see anything that prohibits expressions if bigotry.

With regard to being complicit, realistically I think that only applies if the speaker is influential and can reach a meaningfully large audience (which isn't VV).

I disagree. I view myself as complicit any time I permit a bigoted remark to go unchallenged, even if there is no one other than the speaker and me to hear it. If nothing else, silence reinfirces the speaker's belief that such remarks are somehow acceptable.

And VV is on the internet.

But also, your statement implies that other people reading the conservatives thread aren't smart enough to judge what the person is saying on their own without your counter arguments to to guide them.

No, it's about not spreading the idea that such views are so acceptable and harmless that people can't even be bothered to counter them.

 

[beancounter]

I just re-read the guidelines posted for the debate forum, and I don't see anything that prohibits expressions of bigotry.

No, I meant that the Debate forum is the only place where such opinions are allowed. If such opinions are limited to that forum, they can be easily ignored. But I still think the best solution is to put the person who says those kind of things on ignore.

 

[Mischief]

No, I meant that the Debate forum is the only place where such opinions are allowed. If such opinions are limited to that forum, they can be easily ignored. But I still think the best solution is to put the person who says those kind of things on ignore.

And I've given the reasons why I think that ignoring bigotry is to be complicit with it.

 

[beancounter]

And I've given the reasons why I think that ignoring bigotry is to be complicit with it.

But by being part of a forum that activity excludes it, is effectively ignoring it.

 

[Mischief]

But by being part of a forum that activity excludes it, is effectively ignoring it.

No. Saying "This is not tolerated here" is not ignoring it. It's ostracizing those who promote it. Big difference.

 

[Mischief]

And again, I'm perfectly happy to express my opinion of opinions with which I disagree, as I suspect mist members have realized by now.

But I also understand that not everyone shares my combative nature, and that those individuals would rather not be faced with having to either argue or remain silent in the face of opinions they find abhorrent.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

But that's the thing. You don't have to listen.

People who don't want to hear conservative views have three options on this forum:
1. Simply do not read the thread started by the conservative.
2. Put the conservative on your ignore list.
3. Put the an entire forum area (e.g. the debate thread) on ignore.

There is simple no reason to treat them like barbarians at the gate.. especially before you even hear them.

I think this is a great post. Although I don't know how to do the ignore but the basis principle makes sense.

I do think Mischief makes a good point about bigotry as well though.

It depends what we are talking about. If someone is expressing a pro life opinion or saying that actually it may make sense to limit immigration into the US, then I think beancounter is spot on. In this case people who disagree shouldn't be upset in my opinion that such an opinion has been stated, or feel a need to rush in and fight it. I think that they should either have cool, intellectual discussion or not bother to discuss. Just purely as a suggestion as I suggested before others are always free to take a different approach! But personally I don't feel comfortable with the idea that others are uncomfortable with some things like pro life opinion and rush in with an emotional, or superior response that tries to shut down debate.

However if someone is saying something that is less acceptable such as saying one race or sex is inferior or superior to another then probably Mischief is right. Ignoring probably isn't enough in such a case.

The tricky part then comes in deciding what are acceptable opinions that we strongly disagree with and what are outright false or bigoted statements.

Another tricky part is when what seems to some of us to be outright bigotry or nonsense is supported, enacted or ignored by half the population of the US including the President!

 

[Mischief]

Every abortion discussion I've encountered online (with one notable exception) has devolved into a flaming ****storm, which I think is a real shame. Our collective inability to discuss it without demonizing the other side has made it into such a wedge issue in American society and politics.

I' ve actually been thinking I'd like to give the topic another try on here, with some specific parameters, and with a consensus that it be shut down at the first sign of getting out of hand.

Does anyone have any objections? I'll pm IS and ask whether he's O.K. with it, if no one objects.

 

[beancounter]

No. Saying "This is not tolerated here" is not ignoring it. It's ostracizing those who promote it. Big difference.

OK, it's not ignoring it, but it's intentionally avoiding it. So the end result is the same. You can't criticize something you ignore or avoid. That is you can't claim to be the "defender of the faith" if you avoid or ignore it.

"This is not tolerated here" is not ostracizing someone. It avoids engaging the person beyond just holding up a virtual stop sign. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You either have to engage no one or engage everyone.

 

[PTree15]

At VV, it's less about censorship, and more about those with a minority opinion being made to feel unwelcome.

As a result, the forum is small and insular. Those who are the biggest offenders don't believe they are doing anything wrong, and things will never change here because they view themselves as "defenders of the faith".

Maybe I have missed the more volatile threads with personal attacks, but I don't see how disagreeing strongly (but civilly) with someone who has a minority opinion should make a person feel unwelcome. That seems like reaction by that person to possibly feeling uncomfortable with simply being in the minority.

 

[Mischief]

OK, it's not ignoring it, but it's intentionally avoiding it. So the end result is the same. You can't criticize something you ignore or avoid. That is you can't claim to be the "defender of the faith" if you avoid or ignore it.

"This is not tolerated here" is not ostracizing someone. It avoids engaging the person beyond just holding up a virtual stop sign. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You either have to engage no one or engage everyone.

Ah, all or nothing arguments are always so fun.

Even if George Soros paid every member of VV a generous sum to do nothing but go forth and combat bigotry wherever we find it, we couldn't possibly engage every bigot in this country, much less the world.

So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't engage any. Got it.

We've all heard the good old all or nothing argument before. "You can't save all the animals, so you might as well eat meat."

As to your underlying assumption that saying "This will not be tolerated here" is the equivalent of ignoring it, then I guess laws are just ways of ignoring murder, theft, etc. If you ever told your kids, "You will not bring drugs into this house", it was just a way of ignoring drugs. If I put a lock on my poultry house door to protect my chickens and ducks from being taken in the night, I'm just ignoring the thieves.

Can't say that you have a logical argument there, Beancounter, much less a persuasive one.

 

[Mischief]

Question for those who think we should make the forum m ore welcoming to conservative viewpoints:
How do you suggest we go about it?

Create a subforum where only conservatives can post?

Create a rule where only one person can respond to any given conservative? How will that person be selected?

Have a rule that conservative posts can't be responded to? Only one response per post? Two responses per post?

 

[Mark Mywordz]

Me: I think that no opinions should be deleted. Fascists, racists even terrorists should be able to air their views on any forum.
You:I couldn't disagree more strongly.
Deeyah Khan, a Muslim woman of color: Deeyah Khan's 'White Right' Shows How to Fight Racism - The Atlantic

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I don't think we need to do anything specific to conservative viewpoints or have only one person per post, but we can just keep the controversial discussions to certain areas of the forum and perhaps keep the conservative viewpoints out of certain threads. For example if someone starts a thread that is pro-liberal in the opening post (e.g. the one that was let's all vent about Trump here) then that's a sign not to make conservative viewpoints on that thread.

Yes to the abortion discussion - I'm assuming in a new thread rather than here. I don't think we should shut it down and soon as it gets out of hand. We could shut it down for a day and reopen it, see how we go. Shut down certain posters that are being rude but not the whole thread. We ought to be able to talk about these things.

It's also possible that the admin/mods/owner has received private messages in response to this thread or others in the past that may give us helpful guidance about how to proceed. If so, perhaps the owner/top mod could summarise here - without naming names obviously.

 

[beancounter]

So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't engage any. Got it.

Nope, by my reasoning we should engage all. You're the one insisting that VV exclude (not engage) conservatives.

So which do you chose? A Safe space, or an open forum?