Rule 4 - Be Nice

I was afk and missed it being locked, but I have seen this happen before and tbh it isn't right that our spaces to talk get shut down just because others feel the need to come and disrespect those being supportive of eachother in the conversation. Trans folk on this forum are not failing to be nice just because we refuse to back down when being gaslit about our own experiences. There's nothing wrong with curious cis folk wanting to ask respectful questions in good faith but that isn't what is happening in the majority of these threads.
The Mods are volunteers and there's a degree to which limitations can be expected BUT in a forum that claims to be a safespace where transphobia isn't allowed it's apparent that a professional mod team should be the core of those roles with the volunteers as support because in other forums this kind of thing would not be allowed to continue. We're either all expected to follow those rules or none of us are.

The existence of trans people is not political.

If it's not something relevant to you, it's perfectly acceptable for you to not open threads that have "trans" in the title. No one will be offended if you don't contribute to an issue you don't know anything about.

Thank you, and sorry to have thrown that last reply to you on the other thread, it was almost all typed out anyway by that point and seemed a shame to not send it after all that typing. Take care, and I hope see you again around the forum when I come back.

Sorry to read that, bees, I hope you get well soon.

One should always look after one’s health. I wish you a speedy recovery.

Peter, I know I have other conversations with you runnng in other threads concurrently at this point but I am going to have to ask you if we can put a pin in our chats for a while, as I've just recently been made aware I'll not have access to this device for a while as I'm being put on bed rest and my phone isn't  great for this forum tbh. I'll have to resume chats later down the line if they haven't long gone cold by then.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

That's technically true, in the same vein that nobody really get's cancelled (they delete their own accounts) but I think it has more to do with a subjective element where the person is met with such resistance that they feel unwelcome, regardless of intent from the other person in the conversation.

Actually in spite of my protestations in another thread the mod team here are usually quite good so I'm not aware of anyone being 'canceled' either. But it does certainly happen in other places, Quite a lot actually. Some mod just deletes an account when they don't like what someone says.

That's technically true, in the same vein that nobody really get's cancelled (they delete their own accounts) but I think it has more to do with a subjective element where the person is met with such resistance that they feel unwelcome, regardless of intent from the other person in the conversation.
I know I just refuse to continue engaging with certain folks on this forum after a while because not everyone who asks a question is doing so because they are genuinely open to what the answer could be. And they don't have to swear at someone to be insulting.
Especially on the topics that tend to evoke a strong emotional response from some people. I use the phrase good faith a lot because it is a key to having open discussions, and while human rights for certain groups should not be up for debate for example, discussions around expanding our understanding of these groups and topics that apply to them are really great to have, but that cannot happen if one party is just set on misunderstanding or disliking another no matter what.
But it can very easily feel like you are "shouted down" when interacting with people like that and in those kind of threads. But identifying that kind of disingenuine and reactionary response, and when the discussion has gone "zombie" (it looks like it's alive and moving but really it's dead and not going anywhere) and knowing when to walk away and preserve our own spoons is a bit of a fine art I think.

Can you not? It's difficult enough already to find the comment you're looking for in long threads on this forum, especially on mobile.

My point is the metaphor is inappropriate. The thing about ‘disruptive’ online behaviour is most of it isn’t actually disruptive it’s just annoying. I could post long rambling essays in these threads about completely unrelated topics or just copy paste  long lists of swear words … it wouldn’t stop you reading other posts and responding to them, you’d just have to scroll past mine and ignore them. No matter what i say I’m not able to shut down or drowned out others discussion. In fact the only way I could is if i wrote something so offensive the mods came in an shut down discussion.

there is no equivalent to shouting someone’s down on a online forum.

I think unlike some of us HP35 has a more rounded understanding of metaphor.

One can’t scream over people on a Internet forum. The disruption exists only if you allow it to by addressing a tantrum as if it were an argument when they are not making substantiative points.

The problem is that (1) is often accompanied by the immature person throwing a tantrum and screaming "I HATE YOU" over and over, which can be disruptive to the discussion. Sometimes you need a parent/moderator to gently carry them out so that meaningful conversation can continue.

Here here.  Nicely put.

HP35 said:

Trying to include such people in a discussion is like trying to include a child who hasn't learned to count yet in a discussion about the use of path integrals in quantum field theory.

As some one who would be happy to sit down a 5 year old and explain path integrals to them I don't think that's a particularly good argument. There are essentially 3 outcomes when you meet someone with arguments so complex they challenge the limits of their understanding.

1. They reject your argument out of hand with out really attempting to comprehend it. In which case you've won a kind of moral victory and undermined the credibility of their position in the minds of those approaching the discussion with a genuine interest in the truth.
2. As you explain things they come round, at least partly, to your point of view.
3. They adept very rapidly to the new ideas you present and come up with some good counter arguments poking holes either in those ideas or the way you're using them in your arguments.

Anyway having knowledge or intelligence isn't a prerequisite for being a functioning member of society (unfortunately). If you exclude segments of society from the discourse when you come out of your echo chamber you'll find the consensus you've built doesn't help you in the real world.

strawman argument.

Pretty much.

Not able to read all that for context rn as I'm on the phone but just caught a notification which brought me here, and I think what I just skim read was you just described the Dunning-Kruger effect. Correct?

The problem is that the uninformed person usually does not realise that their argument is weak, because they do not even have the minimal knowledge or experience required to recognise it as such. Trying to include such people in a discussion is like trying to include a child who hasn't learned to count yet in a discussion about the use of path integrals in quantum field theory. They might have very strong opinions on the matter, but those opinions aren't particularly relevant.

I disagree. Peoples opinions should not rest on their reputations but the strength of their arguments. An expert who offers a weak argument is less worth listening to than a nobody with a strong argument. And one of the reasons we argue is to change peoples minds and you will not get people to listen to your position unless you listen to there’s.

If you want to change hearts and minds then you want the so called TERFs coming in here arguing with you, because it’s the only way you’ll ever change their minds, by hearing them out and trying to talk them round.

I disagree. Peoples opinions should not rest on their reputations but the strength of their arguments. An expert who offers a weak argument is less worth listening to than a nobody with a strong argument. And one of the reasons we argue is to change peoples minds and you will not get people to listen to your position unless you listen to there’s.

If you want to change hearts and minds then you want the so called TERFs coming in here arguing with you, because it’s the only way you’ll ever change their minds, by hearing them out and trying to talk them round.

Thank you, and sorry to have thrown that last reply to you on the other thread, it was almost all typed out anyway by that point and seemed a shame to not send it after all that typing. Take care, and I hope see you again around the forum when I come back.

Sorry to read that, bees, I hope you get well soon.

One should always look after one’s health. I wish you a speedy recovery.

Peter, I know I have other conversations with you runnng in other threads concurrently at this point but I am going to have to ask you if we can put a pin in our chats for a while, as I've just recently been made aware I'll not have access to this device for a while as I'm being put on bed rest and my phone isn't  great for this forum tbh. I'll have to resume chats later down the line if they haven't long gone cold by then.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

That's technically true, in the same vein that nobody really get's cancelled (they delete their own accounts) but I think it has more to do with a subjective element where the person is met with such resistance that they feel unwelcome, regardless of intent from the other person in the conversation.

Actually in spite of my protestations in another thread the mod team here are usually quite good so I'm not aware of anyone being 'canceled' either. But it does certainly happen in other places, Quite a lot actually. Some mod just deletes an account when they don't like what someone says.

That's technically true, in the same vein that nobody really get's cancelled (they delete their own accounts) but I think it has more to do with a subjective element where the person is met with such resistance that they feel unwelcome, regardless of intent from the other person in the conversation.
I know I just refuse to continue engaging with certain folks on this forum after a while because not everyone who asks a question is doing so because they are genuinely open to what the answer could be. And they don't have to swear at someone to be insulting.
Especially on the topics that tend to evoke a strong emotional response from some people. I use the phrase good faith a lot because it is a key to having open discussions, and while human rights for certain groups should not be up for debate for example, discussions around expanding our understanding of these groups and topics that apply to them are really great to have, but that cannot happen if one party is just set on misunderstanding or disliking another no matter what.
But it can very easily feel like you are "shouted down" when interacting with people like that and in those kind of threads. But identifying that kind of disingenuine and reactionary response, and when the discussion has gone "zombie" (it looks like it's alive and moving but really it's dead and not going anywhere) and knowing when to walk away and preserve our own spoons is a bit of a fine art I think.

Can you not? It's difficult enough already to find the comment you're looking for in long threads on this forum, especially on mobile.

My point is the metaphor is inappropriate. The thing about ‘disruptive’ online behaviour is most of it isn’t actually disruptive it’s just annoying. I could post long rambling essays in these threads about completely unrelated topics or just copy paste  long lists of swear words … it wouldn’t stop you reading other posts and responding to them, you’d just have to scroll past mine and ignore them. No matter what i say I’m not able to shut down or drowned out others discussion. In fact the only way I could is if i wrote something so offensive the mods came in an shut down discussion.

there is no equivalent to shouting someone’s down on a online forum.

I think unlike some of us HP35 has a more rounded understanding of metaphor.

One can’t scream over people on a Internet forum. The disruption exists only if you allow it to by addressing a tantrum as if it were an argument when they are not making substantiative points.

The problem is that (1) is often accompanied by the immature person throwing a tantrum and screaming "I HATE YOU" over and over, which can be disruptive to the discussion. Sometimes you need a parent/moderator to gently carry them out so that meaningful conversation can continue.

Here here.  Nicely put.

HP35 said:

Trying to include such people in a discussion is like trying to include a child who hasn't learned to count yet in a discussion about the use of path integrals in quantum field theory.

As some one who would be happy to sit down a 5 year old and explain path integrals to them I don't think that's a particularly good argument. There are essentially 3 outcomes when you meet someone with arguments so complex they challenge the limits of their understanding.

1. They reject your argument out of hand with out really attempting to comprehend it. In which case you've won a kind of moral victory and undermined the credibility of their position in the minds of those approaching the discussion with a genuine interest in the truth.
2. As you explain things they come round, at least partly, to your point of view.
3. They adept very rapidly to the new ideas you present and come up with some good counter arguments poking holes either in those ideas or the way you're using them in your arguments.

Anyway having knowledge or intelligence isn't a prerequisite for being a functioning member of society (unfortunately). If you exclude segments of society from the discourse when you come out of your echo chamber you'll find the consensus you've built doesn't help you in the real world.

strawman argument.

Pretty much.

Not able to read all that for context rn as I'm on the phone but just caught a notification which brought me here, and I think what I just skim read was you just described the Dunning-Kruger effect. Correct?

The problem is that the uninformed person usually does not realise that their argument is weak, because they do not even have the minimal knowledge or experience required to recognise it as such. Trying to include such people in a discussion is like trying to include a child who hasn't learned to count yet in a discussion about the use of path integrals in quantum field theory. They might have very strong opinions on the matter, but those opinions aren't particularly relevant.